The ugly facts about rape »« Who is your favorite skeptic?

Dr. Dan Golaszewski is a quack!

Once again, it’s time to call out a chiropractor. Not only is Dr Dan practicing a phony pretense of medicine, chiropractic, but he’s full of woo in other ways, too: his business is “Aligning spines and lifestyles with God’s ultimate intentions”, and he happily muddles together chiropractic mythology with his religious baloney — he believes that vertebral subluxion “results in a lessening of the body’s God-given, innate-ability to express its maximum health potential.” Chiropractors are awful enough, but chiropractors who actually babble about “subluxions”…run away. Run away very fast.

But here’s what prompts me to single this goon out today: in response to criticisms, he is threatening lawsuits. What is it with these woomeisters? Christopher Maloney, Burzynski, it’s a sure sign that you’re dealing with a delusional dingleberry when their reflex response to any criticism is to go running to the lawyers or start harrassing people’s employers to silence those who dare to question their methods (I’ve been hearing similar things about Chris Stedman’s lackeys* lately, which doesn’t surprise me). I guess it comes with the territory: if you’re a purveyor of quackery or woo, you’re also likely to be chickenshit.

*The initial attribution to Stedman has been changed to place the blame properly on his sycophantic lackeys.

Comments

  1. scorpy1 says

    …innate-ability to express its maximum health potential”

    I couldn’t read that without thinking of the first 2 minutes of this.

  2. says

    Consider that it worked for Scientology for a long time to use the legal system to harass anyone who told the truth about them.

    Fortunately, the web increasingly makes such intimidation of free speech much less likely to truly silence criticisms of wackos.

    Glen Davidson

  3. Rey Fox says

    the body’s God-given, innate-ability to express its maximum health potential

    Can’t wait until I hear the booming laughter from certain blog denizens at this little chestnut.

  4. RFW says

    Best of all, if you really do need spinal manipulation, the better qualified physiotherapists know how to do the exact same manipulations that the chiropractors use. But with these advantages:

    A physiotherapist won’t…

    …subject you to unnecessary manipulation; he doesn’t think that spinal manipulation is the end all and be all of therapies.

    …won’t try to persuade you that the medicos (esp. surgeons) want to “cut you” (as though surgeons get erections thinking of cutting someone open). Quite the contrary! In his well-known book, “The Back Doctor”, the Toronto orthopedic surgeon Hamilton Hall remarks that something like 90% of the patients who consulted him were NOT candidates for back surgery.

    …won’t try to con you into undergoing various other quack therapies.

    …will use other treatment modalities if they are called for.

    …won’t pretend that manipulations will cure cancer or any other such ailment. Pity the poor person who gets sucked in by a quack and forgoes the treatment they really need in favor of more “adjustments”.

    …will help you establish an exercise regimen that will lessen the need for repeat visits. Ever notice how chiropractors love return business?

  5. Lyle says

    I’ve seen this brand of chiropractic before. “Dr.” Shane Hand and his Amarillo Family Wellness Center has an annoying radio commercial that espouses essentially the same thing that Dan Golaszewski does.

  6. erichoug says

    Let me start of by saying that I am a born sceptic and I also realize that what I am about to say is annecdotal but..

    When I was in college, my (63 year old) father was a marathon runner. He regularly ran 7-9 marathons in a year. Every year he would set a goal to run 11 marathons that year. But he never hit this number as some sort of injury or illness would always sideline him.

    Most commonly, he would have back trouble. One year, right before a race, he threw out his back. This was a really bad one and he could barely walk, let alone run. When he got a bit better, he was giving my brother and I a ride in to town. Back brace, barely able to move, the whole bit. When my brother said “Hey, why don’t you go see a Chiropractor, it’s not like your doctor is doing anything for you.”
    “Yeah,” I said “What have you got to lose, I mean you can barely walk now.”
    So, dad went out that afterlunch and saw a chiropractor, that evening he ran 12 miles.

    He saw a chiropractor 4 times a year after that until his death. he never had severe back troubles again. So, I am wondering, are there Chiropractors that actually know something and can help in certain situations and chiropractors that are just kooks?

    Or is this all just co-inky-dink.

  7. Gregory says

    I think you are incorrect in calling them chickenshit. Woo-peddlers and other snake oil salesmen have a business model that relies on gullible, if not stupid, people. Efforts to educate their marks clients threatens their livelihoods, so an aggressive reation is to be expected.

  8. Gregory says

    @erichoug #10 – Chiropracty (chiropaxis?) got its start as quack medicine more than a hundred years ago. The original theory was that disease was caused by a misaligned spine; by manual manipulation and the application of “magnetism” (which in the late 1800s meant magical force rather than electromagnetic fields), it was possible to “unblock” the body’s own “magnetism” and thereby elicit miraculous cures of everything from impotence to baldness to deafness to cancer.

    There are some legitimate chiropractors who focus on chronic pain management: we know know that back problems do have far reaching effects to overall wellness. By and large, though, the field has always been and remains a haven for “alternative medicine” such as acupuncture, colonics, chakra cleansings, homeopathy and “detox” fasting.

  9. Sastra says

    erichoug #10 wrote:

    So, I am wondering, are there Chiropractors that actually know something and can help in certain situations and chiropractors that are just kooks?

    Short answer: yes, there are rational chiropractors who limit their care to musculoskeletal problems and they can be very effective. But, as Gregory points out in #10, the roots of chiropractic are based on unscientific or pseudoscientific assumptions.

    For a while there was a movement within chiropractry to separate “straight” practitioners (the woo) from the reformed groups. Samuel Homola, D.C. was spearheading the movement. My understanding is that he eventually gave it up: it was simply too easy for nonsense to creep in anyway and too hard to found any guidelines that chiropractors would follow.

    For an example of such guidelines see here and for an article detailing the distinctions between types of chiropractic see here.

    Your dad could have seen a competent practitioner — either one which was science-based or one which was filled with woo but managed to be very good at the stuff that wasn’t woo. Or, it could have been regression to the mean or some other factor. I don’t know and at this point it’s hard for anyone to say.

  10. cybercmdr says

    I agree that chiropractors can and often do incorporate a lot of woo in their practice. Having had problems with my back off and on over the years, I also know however that things can get out of alignment and this can cause pain as the body tries to compensate. To this end, when things were really bad I got chiropractic treatments and they did help. Note: being able to stand up straight instead of walking like George Burns did 90+ is not a placebo effect. The relief is pretty immediate.

    Eventually I had to have surgery (herniated disk), and after recovering I took Yoga classes to strengthen my back. I found several Yoga exercises that can quickly pop my back if things get out of line, so now I treat myself as soon as I realize there is a problem.

  11. jjgdenisrobert says

    To those who claim benefits from Chiropractic:

    1. Yeah, your stories are just anecdotal, which means they aren’t worth squat. Sorry.

    2. There is some evidence that chiropractic can help in certain specific types of back pain. BUT:
    a) There is no evidence that chiropractic care is any better than other, more conventional treatments for the same problems
    b) There is a LOT of evidence that chiropractic can be extremely risky, and there are a lot of cases on the books of deaths due to chiropractic manipulations, especially in the cervical region.

    If you have one of the specific types of back pain for which there is evidence of efficacy for chiropractic, AND more conventional treatments have been tried and failed, then go for it. BUT:

    1) If the chiropractor ever mentions the word “subluxation” or “energy” or “wellness”.
    or
    2) If the chiropractor comes anywhere near your neck

    RUN AS FAST AS YOU CAN OUT OF HIS OFFICE.

  12. says

    I’m glad you posted this. Being raised in a medical family I grew up with a loathing for chiroquacktors. Too bad most people I know swear by these dickweeds.

  13. Active Margin says

    Everyone knows you don’t need a chiropractor if you just go out and buy one of those power balance bracelet things.

    It has holograms!

    But seriously, this type of crap should be criminal. I fail to see why it isn’t; it’s fraud. The threatening reaction to criticism tells me that the prudent course of action is to speak up even louder.

    Also; her punctuation appears to be; out of alignment with god’s ultimate intentions. If you throw semicolons around haphazardly like that; your audience may fail; to recognize the severity of your message.

  14. F says

    Gregory:

    Efforts to educate their marks clients threatens their livelihoods, so an aggressive reation is to be expected.

    Right. That is a fear reaction. Just like many other industries have when their business model or business is threatened or outmoded. Hence, “chikenshit”. SLAPP-like threats all come from offended chickenshits.

    Oh, and all the quacking seems to have scared up a scaryduck. Hi, scaryduck.

  15. tomh says

    @ #17

    this type of crap should be criminal. I fail to see why it isn’t

    Same reason all sorts of other woo is legal. Fortune tellers, psychics, supplements (snake oil), religious frauds (Harold Camping made a lot of money with his end of the world prediction), they’re all legal in America. This is the land of the free. Let the buyer beware.

  16. FossilFishy says

    WRF #8

    …won’t pretend that manipulations will cure cancer or any other such ailment. Pity the poor person who gets sucked in by a quack and forgoes the treatment they really need in favor of more “adjustments”.

    I had a boss who suffered from chronic back pain. She saw a chiropractor for almost a year until the pain got too bad. She then started seeing a Chinese herbalist. After a few months of that she finally saw a real doctor and discovered that the cause was lung cancer that had spread to her spine. She was dead within a few weeks of that diagnosis.

    This is the another danger of chiropractic and other quack treatments, they have no accurate or reliable methods of diagnosing real illnesses. Neither of the quacks she saw about her pain had any clue that it was lung cancer and that mis-diagnosis gave her no chance of survival.

    Quacks ought to be tested. Give them a selection of patients to diagnose under reasonably blinded conditions and if they fail to do so at a level greater than chance they’re not allowed to practice with severe penalties for non-compliance.

  17. Brownian says

    …won’t try to persuade you that the medicos (esp. surgeons) want to “cut you” (as though surgeons get erections thinking of cutting someone open).

    Seriously though, doctors do joke that surgeons think every problem is solved with a scalpel, but that’s probably just professional ribbing.

    So Chris Stedman has found a hobby other than fapping to the Lord’s prayer while wearing a keffiyeh embroidered with Stars of David and thumbing through a bodhi seed mala?

    Good for him!

    May all the gods he wishes he believed in look down upon his superficial scenester supplication with favour.

  18. jflcroft says

    I concur with SC and Josh – if you are going to make a serious accusation like that against someone, you are honor-bound to provide evidence. As far as I am aware (and I work closely with Chris every week) the allegation you have made is completely without foundation. I have NEVER heard of any situation in which he has sought to deny others the right to criticize him or his work.

    There are two things you can do now: provide evidence to support your suggestion, or retract it publicly.

    This goes right to the heart of your integrity as a writer and as a person. Are you content with sly insinuations and hearsay, or will you stand honestly by what you’ve written and provide evidence?

  19. Brownian says

    If the chiropractor comes anywhere near your neck

    …it’s because I told him he couldn’t on my face.

    (I’m so sorry. I had to.)

  20. Brownian says

    This goes right to the heart of your integrity as a writer and as a person. Are you content with sly insinuations and hearsay, or will you stand honestly by what you’ve written and provide evidence?

    This just got interesting (though, since it’s about Chris Stedman, it won’t stay that way for long.)

  21. says

    Having had problems with my back off and on over the years, I also know however that things can get out of alignment and this can cause pain as the body tries to compensate.

    I’ve said this here before, if your spine is “out of alignment”, you are in hospital on the neurosurgical ward. This concept of chiropractics just does not correspond to the anatomical reality.

    Who’s Chris Stedman ?

  22. shemphair1 says

    I find it kind of funny that so many “free thinkers” are so closed minded. I’m a Chiropractor who is also a Biologist, Chemist and atheist.
    I won’t try to defend what you imagine Chiropractic is. I’ll tell you what I do every day. I optimize spinal joint function. This benefits the body in two primary ways. It reduces inflammation in tissue surrounding the joint(spinal nerve roots)which reduces or slows down degenerative processes. Are we to believe that a swollen nerve root is not going to effect it’s target tissue(ie:sciatica,Neuropathy) or that low grade inflammation plus time is not related to osteoarthritis. Lets science up everyone.

  23. Trebuchet says

    Dr. Dan, meet Streisand effect!

    @ #20:

    I had a boss who suffered from chronic back pain. She saw a chiropractor for almost a year until the pain got too bad. She then started seeing a Chinese herbalist. After a few months of that she finally saw a real doctor and discovered that the cause was lung cancer that had spread to her spine. She was dead within a few weeks of that diagnosis.

    My wife used to work for an insurance company processing medical claims. She had several cases like that, one of which was a 16 year old boy. Would they have survived if they had seen a real doctor instead of a chiroquactor? Who knows? But as it was, they got no treatment and had no chance.

    Later on, she was referred by her MD to chiropractor because he thought it might help her back and neck problems. The quack told her to stop taking her asthma medicine because he “could cure that”. She didn’t go back, told her doc, and had the pleasure of listening to him cussing out the quack on the phone.

  24. Brownian says

    I find it kind of funny that so many “free thinkers” are so closed minded.

    Hallmark should put this on a card so that morons don’t have to waste their time typing it out.

    You might be Captain Peer Review of the League of Legitimate Medicine, but you just intoned the exact same string of drool that every fuckwit with a pyramid-shaped hat full of dull razor blades and plans for a new Nazca spaceport does.

  25. says

    JFLCroft at #24

    The fault is not PZ’s, it’s mine.

    Twice in my life have my employer’s received complaints for my blogging. It was both times I blogged about Chris, including my piece today. As a result, I had to ask FtB’s tech person how to get a disclaimer atop my blog.

    When I asked, curiosity arose as to why. I told them and I told them I suspected Chris was sending his minions in. It turns out this was not the case. It is instead one of his fans who has orchestrated the complaints, and I have my suspicions who, but it was not Chris.

    PZ, understandably, came to my defense. But, as I said before, the fault’s not his, it’s mine.

    JT

  26. shemphair1 says

    Thanks for making my point 31 and 32 with your enlightening thoughts and furthering a discussion.

  27. jflcroft says

    Thanks for clearing that up JT. I expect PZ will post a retraction reflecting your clarification here. It’s unfortunate that we spend so much time attacking each other when we share so many basic commitments. It’s also unfortunate (and reprehensible) that some are so zealous that they would seek to shut you up. Not that they’d ever succeed, I’m sure ;) Long live the debate!

    SC: I’m hesitant to ask, but what is a “Ewan R”?

  28. says

    Excuse please. Very confused. A dingleberry is a hardened piece of feces that remains attached to one’s anal hairs. How is possible for it to become delusional?

    Is it ZZ’s insinuation that these chiropractors are in fact his dingleberrys that have wandered off and gotten Chiropractic degrees? Sort of an opposite of immaculate conception?

    How may I attain such power? Is it necessary to warm my bum on my chair like y’all sixteen hours a day, incubating my unwashed dingleberries until they chirp awake and wander off to premedical programs?

    Or perhaps I simply need to send my dingleberries to ZZ. Great ZZ, awaken our dingleberries! Send them out into the world to publish blogs and irritate others!

  29. echidna says

    shemphairi,

    The joke’s on you. Readers of this blog include doctors, professors and people with more biology in their pinky fingers than you possess. I wouldn’t call readers on this blog closed-minded if I were you. Educated and therefore not as gullible as your usual mark is closer to the truth.

  30. Brownian says

    Thanks for making my point 31 and 32 with your enlightening thoughts and furthering a discussion.

    How does a cut ‘n’ paste of every eleven-year-old on the internet become a chiropractor?

    But if it’s an argument you want, go ahead: devastate us with another sarcastic use of scare quotes. That’s like a clinical trial right there.

    Now fuck off. I’m not interested in pretending you and I are both of a species of sentient being.

    JT, are you serious? You caught flak for this post?

    Oh, Chris Stedman. I caught a tweet of his the other day that made me chuckle.

    ChrisDStedman: Childish, vulgar, dehumanizing comments by @AmericanAtheist prez. MT @MrAtheistPants: I’ll defame #Islam if I want to.. fb.me/HEH66rNB

    He was referring to Dave Silverman saying…

    Never give up a right without a fight. I will defame Islam if I want to. It doesn’t mean I hate Muslims. It means Islam is a shitty religion that worships a pedophile as morally perfect.

    I mean, “Oh, Stedman”? That’s practically libel right there.

    Nice work, Stedman’s mysterious defender. That’s some real bridge-building.

  31. Trebuchet says

    Ok shemphair, you want to further discussion. (Shemp? Really? Shemp, for FSM’s sake? Why?) Ok forget that, it’s irrelevant.

    What do you say about chiropractors who routinely tell patients to stop taking critical medications for conditions having nothing to do with the spine. (Happened to two close relatives, my wife and my father.)

    How about chiros who, like “Dr Dan” tell people not to vaccinate their children? How about chiros who tell people to defraud their insurance companies by claiming a new “accident” every six months like clockwork because “maintenance” care is not covered? How about chiros who send reports to the insurance company stating that the insured “came in complaining of back and neck pain” when the insured is a six month old baby?

    You may be an actual ethical chiropractor who treats only what’s appropriate. If so, you’re part of a tiny minority.

  32. says

    Chiropractors, at least the ones who insist they can cure anything, always make me think of Fred Flintstone. No, really (maybe The Flintstones really was a documentary).
    There’s an episode where Barney pretends he’s sick so he can skip work, but they have him come in and see the nurse. Fred tries to help him out by lighting a match under the thermometer, and Barney winds up in the hospital with a temperature of 312 degrees, awaiting surgery.
    Fred waylays the real surgeon and takes his place. Fred then proceeds to “cure” Barney by twisting his nose with a monkey wrench for a few minutes.
    Fred Flintstone, D.C.

  33. Brownian says

    Trebuchet, let me field that one.

    “A mind is like a parachute: it only works when it’s open.”

    Uh, and

    “I see you’ve stooped to insults. That’s a sign you’ve lost the argument.”

    and

    “I’m sorry. I don’t understand. Please type N,W,E,S, or I for inventory.”

  34. says

    JFLCroft,

    It’s unfortunate that we spend so much time attacking each other when we share so many basic commitments.

    No, it’s not. It’s one of the things we have very right. Our willingness to police our own is what refines our arguments and part of what separates us from many religious groups (how much easier would our lives be if Catholics could police their own).

    I like that we’re willing to tear into each other when we think the other is wrong.

    It’s also unfortunate (and reprehensible) that some are so zealous that they would seek to shut you up. Not that they’d ever succeed, I’m sure ;) Long live the debate!

    Unfortunate, yes. And how sure are you?

    JT

  35. jflcroft says

    I think you’re right about the importance – the necessity – of self-policing and robust internal criticism. It’s the sheer amount of time and emotional intensity poured into raking over every little thing everyone says which is exhausting and, in my view, ultimately unproductive. I think we should generally make an assumption of good faith when it comes to those who are ostensibly on our side, and focus more of our efforts toward battling common foes.

    As for the likelihood of anyone successfully shutting you up? Having read your blistering writing for a while, and seen you in action at Skepticon (and heard your magnificent voice!), I don’t think anybody would stand a chance!

  36. says

    shemphair1:

    Lets science up everyone.

    Yes. Let’s.

    We’ll start with you. I assume you have citations for clinical research into the efficacy of chiropracty. That should do for a start, followed by clinical research into the relationship between mild inflammation and nerve degeneration, and the role of chiropracty in the reduction of mild inflammation.

  37. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    James Croft-

    It’s unfortunate that we spend so much time attacking each other when we share so many basic commitments.

    True. Though your friend Chris is one of the most egregious offenders, and you have to know that’s true whatever your feelings about his work and him as a person. He is, after all, the one who co-wrote a HuffPo piece castigating his fellow queers for (rightly) being vocally outraged at Jim Wallis of the Sojourners for refusing an advertisement that depicted a lesbian-headed family as normal and worthy of congregational acceptance. He scolded queers, not Sojourners. And that’s not the only time he’s toadied up to power with his nicey-nice persona while throwing the more vocal (and ethically consistent) among us under the bus. If you’re interested in evaluating his position honestly you can’t ignore that, James. He’s acted like a privileged asshole, and a (yes, I’m going there) Uncle Mary.

    And for that he can fuck right off. He has a lot to learn about ethical commitments.

    Now for the concession: I admit I was ready, eager even, to hear that Stedman was lobbing legal threats at other people. I was wrong, as JT pointed out. My eagerness to believe this highlights how easy it is for any one of us to want to believe the worst about people we think are our opponents. It’s not a very nice thing to admit to, and it is most definitely a failing. Yes, I think PZ ought to do an update clarifying this, and I assume he will.

    So, no, Stedman didn’t deserve to be dragged into this conversation for something he never did. He’d be completely justified in being righteously pissed off about it.

  38. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    Typical. Stedman has to label his post “when atheists get it wrong.” Not “When JT Eberhard Gets It Wrong.” Not “When PZ Myers Gets It Wrong.”

    No. When Atheists (TM) get it wrong.

    As I wrote above, he has every reason to be pissed off at being unfairly accused of dubious behavior. I would be, and I’d write scathing posts about it.

    But his choice of words betrays his commitments. He has to cast this as Atheists (TM) getting it wrong. Because he’s so busy sucking up as an Interfaith Gentle Nice Guy.

    What a bullshitter.

  39. says

    SC: I’m hesitant to ask, but what is a “Ewan R”?

    He’s someone with a myteriously rapid and comprehensive awareness of criticism of a certain agrochemical corporation who gallops across the internet to its defense, much like you with Stedman.

    It’s unfortunate that we spend so much time attacking each other

    Comments like these, for example, are most unfortunate:

    Yet more evidence of the miserable and gutless double standard that pervades these sewers of the Internet: unless you express complete and fawning agreement with everything the dictators say, they descend en masse with their bullying and whining and needling and squawking.

    Here is a place which lauds criticism and dissent – except if directed at itself.

    Here is place which upholds the standards of scientific enquiry – except if bending those standards benefits itself.

    Here is a place which sees nothing wrong with harsh and forthright language – except if it is turned upon itself.

    :P

  40. says

    Re: Vlad #46

    The link will confirm that even if Stedman is not the one complaining to my employers, he is giving a platform to the ones who are.

    JT

  41. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    Choice bits from Stedman’s blog:

    For some reason I don’t quite understand, it looks like JT Eberhardt has a grudge against Chris Stedman,

    Yeah man, just a grudge. Nuthin’ of substance. Move along. No reasons man, he’s just harshin’ our mellow dude. .

    Before I get started, I should mention that Chris started NonProphet Status, he’s hip as fuck, and he’s a friend of mine.

    Totally awesome! Rock on, Chris.

  42. vladchituc says

    Josh,

    Did you read the post? Or the explanatory paragraph at the beginning? Or the authorship under the post or at the end?

    Chris didn’t write it, and it’s part of a broader column.

    Even more so, the criticisms apply more broadly, especially PZ and you, too, apparently. For calling Chris a bullshitter for a post he clearly didn’t write.

  43. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    Chris didn’t write it, and it’s part of a broader column.

    Even more so, the criticisms apply more broadly, especially PZ and you, too, apparently. For calling Chris a bullshitter for a post he clearly didn’t write.

    The hell is wrong with you? Chris published it on his own blog. So what that he didn’t write it? He clearly endorses the sentiment – it’s on his blog.

    You get that, right?

  44. vladchituc says

    JT,

    Let’s not chalk this up to some grand conspiracy on my behalf, because I rightly complained that you acted unprofessionally to one of the students your organization represents.

    It has literally nothing to do with Chris, and I don’t know why the fact that I blog on Chris’ site is of the least bit of relevance.

  45. says

    I’ve heard a number of things.

    There have been attempts to silence JT on the subject of Chris Stedman. The question is who is behind them. As we see all over the place, Stedman is nicely sheltered behind a wall of young people who seem to do all of his blogging for him; it could very well be that Vlad Chituc is the one who has been complaining behind JT’s back.

    The facts I know is that there are ongoing efforts to censor JT; they’re all focused on his criticisms of Stedman; and now here I see a little squad of his acolytes rushing to his defense. I am incredibly unimpressed that Stedman hides behind his wall of buddies — it’s disturbingly cult-like, and I’m sorry, Stedman really doesn’t have that much charisma.

    You’re all just going to have to live with the fact that there is a difference among atheists. I find the Stedman approach weasely, fruitless, pandering, and cowardly. I know some people like it; I don’t. I despise it. And whining at me in the typical passive-aggressive tone I get from NPS will not win me over.

    Oh, and I don’t have an employer who will pay any attention to you if go whimpering to them with tears in your eyes, crying “He’s picking on Chris! Waaaaah!”

  46. vladchituc says

    Josh,

    No, I published it on Chris’ blog. And your entire criticism comes, again, unfounded, from the title.

    Which the post clearly states is the title of a running column I have.

    You get that, right?

  47. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    “Explanatory Paragraph” in question from Stedman’s blog:

    Vlad Chituc’s column, When Atheists Get It Wrong, is intended to critically examine bad claims and arguments, not to tear down their author or damage atheism writ large, but to critically assess those arguments and positions to build up better, more accurate ones, in order to promote a stronger atheist movement. As a reminder, the views of this blog post do not necessarily represent those of Chris Stedman, the other NPS panelists, or any of the organizations with which they affiliate.

    Yeah. Stedman is running an Op-Ed page where his board of directors carefully selects among a panoply of submissions, some of which may disagree strongly with the editorial leanings of the site’s ownership, all in the public interest of promoting broad discourse.

    Yeah.

  48. vladchituc says

    PZ,

    I entirely acknowledge I complained about JT. Once. Six months ago. Not at all related to Chris.

    Because as a student leader for my school’s SSA, JT acted inappropriately, unprofessionally, and immaturely to a student leader he is meant to represent.

    If that doesn’t warrant legitimate complaint, I don’t know what does.

  49. says

    Ah, so Chituc admits to being a weasely little rat who complains to the SSA about JT. Charming.

    What does Stedman do to you guys to turn you into such simpering little whiners? Does he use drugs or lobotomies?

  50. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    And your entire criticism comes, again, unfounded, from the title.

    No, that’s not my entire criticism of the universe of dishonest, feckless, and morally suspect positions taken by Chris Stedman. Or of your fawning piece. Or of your obnoxious title.

  51. vladchituc says

    So I’m a weaselly little rat, because I, as the president of my school’s SSA chapter, complain to the SSA when an employee of theirs says “fuck you” to me over a disagreement on facebook?

    Yeah, I’m such a simpering little shiner, right?

  52. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    So I’m a weaselly little rat, because I, as the president of my school’s SSA chapter, complain to the SSA when an employee of theirs says “fuck you” to me over a disagreement on facebook?

    Yeah, I’m such a simpering little shiner, right?

    Yep.

  53. says

    So here is our situation as it stands.

    People want a retraction from PZ because of an implication that Chris complains to people’s employers when criticized. Vlad wants the same.

    Then it is revealed that Chris gives a platform to people who do complain to people’s employer for harsh language and when Chris is criticized. Miraculously, no outrage.

    This is as far as I’m willing to go with this. I like my job.

    JFLCroft – How sure were you, again?

    JT

  54. says

    Wait…the “student leader for your school” was you? You made it sound like an objective observer of an infraction when you were actually deeply involved in the whole incident…and it was because he used naughty words on facebook?

    Jesus. Grow up.

    And fuck you, too.

  55. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    Oh, I almost forgot: fuck you Vlad, and stick this decaying porcupine up your asshole. Then pull it out backward.

  56. says

    One more…

    It is, of course, Vlad’s right to complain if he feels I’m out of line.

    And now I’m out and he can make all the rest of the arguments in his own defense.

    JT

  57. screechymonkey says

    jflcroft@44:

    It’s the sheer amount of time and emotional intensity poured into raking over every little thing everyone says which is exhausting and, in my view, ultimately unproductive.

    Says the guy who can’t sprint to his keyboard quickly enough when Stedman is criticized.

  58. vladchituc says

    I emailed a friend of mine who works at the SSA to express my concern.

    I didn’t say “shut JT up.” I didn’t say “don’t let him talk about Chris.” I said “One of your staff is acting inappropriately to student leaders over petty drama on facebook. Whether JT wants to admit it or not, he represents the SSA publicly.”

    Nothing more, nothing less.

    It was a fair complaint for me to make, and JT made it pretty clear he had no interest in talking to me.

    I don’t see why I should have checked with him first. Maybe he should have checked with the SSA before saying “fuck you” to their student leaders.

    Sorry if that’s too “toady” for your taste, PZ.

  59. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    Says the guy who can’t sprint to his keyboard quickly enough when Stedman is criticized.

    One would almost think there was some personal, emotional allegiance. It’s otherwise hard to explain.

  60. jflcroft says

    Josh – I appreciate the honest and reasonable concession at the end of your comment. I think that’s exactly the sort of thing we should all do regarding our I was very upset about Chris’ stance on the Sojourners issue. I wrote a post about it myself, which you can find if you like with a search. Contrary to what some people seem to believe, I’m not a shill for him or his views. We have many spirited disagreements, some of which we air publicly.

    SC – Touche. I accept the rebuke and admit that I am quick to rush to Chris’ defense. What can I say? He is a colleague and a friend. I want to see him fairly treated. When I think he’s in error I’m happy to say so. When he is unfairly maligned, as in this case, I will say so too.

    As for my own comments on this site, they were written in a moment of anger in the midst of a thread filled with extremely personal attacks made against me, and are more extreme than I might write in more measured moments. However, you must agree (if you are to give me a fair hearing), that 1) they are not directed at any individual, and 2) they are exceedingly mild in comparison to some of what is posted here. The fact you seem to take such offense at it (and seem to have saved the link for use in future discussions, no less!) is, to my mind, an example of the double-standard I was pointing out.

  61. says

    JT: Twice in my life have my employer’s received complaints for my blogging. It was both times I blogged about Chris, including my piece today.

    People complained to your employer about your blogging? Were they middle school students or something? What kind of crap is that?

    I assume your employer backed you up and told them to get their own blogs if they have something to say.

    Holy crap, man, I can’t believe that. Wow. Don’t tell me who did that, I don’t want to know. It might be someone I’ll have to deal with in the future and it will be very hard to hold any respect for them. Or a straight face.

  62. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    I didn’t say “shut JT up.” I didn’t say “don’t let him talk about Chris.” I said “One of your staff is acting inappropriately to student leaders over petty drama on facebook. Whether JT wants to admit it or not, he represents the SSA publicly.”

    Nothing more, nothing less.

    You’re full of shit. You didn’t want to have to compete on the rhetorical battlefield. So you resorted to telling the principal on JT so you could have a chance at seeing him reprimanded while you hid behind your smug, innocent persona. You meant to get him in trouble, and you meant to invoke institutional means to do so, and you know it.

    Fuck you.

  63. says

    So I’m a weaselly little rat, because I, as the president of my school’s SSA chapter, complain to the SSA when an employee of theirs says “fuck you” to me over a disagreement on facebook?

    That’s a question?

  64. says

    jflcroft:

    they are exceedingly mild in comparison to some of what is posted here.

    Fuck, most stevedores would blush at some of the shit on this site. That’s what I love about it.

    The fact you seem to take such offense at it…

    I saw no offense demonstrated. It was more an illustration of you saying one thing, and doing another.

    I wish there was a single word for that.

    …(and seem to have saved the link for use in future discussions, no less!)

    Oh, you haven’t heard of the “search” function? It allows folks to look things up fairly quickly, especially if they have an idea what they’re looking for. It’s like a librarian on every web page!

  65. vladchituc says

    Josh,

    “Oh, I almost forgot: fuck you Vlad, and stick this decaying porcupine up your asshole. Then pull it out backward.”

    Lol <3

    PZ and JT.

    Yeah, when I'm a student leader in an organization, and an employee of that organization acts like a petty dick to me on facebook, I am entirely within my right to talk to a friend of mine he works with.

    This was after I started blogging with Chris. Had nothing at all to do with any criticism of Chris. In fact Chris isn't in the least involved in all of this.

    That's why I want a retraction. I'm being forthright with the facts here. I complained once, six months ago, and it had nothing in the least to do with Chris.

    And JT: That's perhaps the most skewed rundown of the situation I've seen. It has nothing to do with Chris being criticized.

    And PZ. Fuck you too <3 It'd help if you'd base your claims on more than hearsay, and picked up a few more adjectives to describe those you disagree with.

  66. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    And grow up, Vlad. For a Yale student you’re acting in a pitiably embarrassing passive-aggressive fashion.

  67. says

    being able to stand up straight instead of walking like George Burns did 90+ is not a placebo effect. The relief is pretty immediate.

    There’s a really wonderful possible explanation of how and why placebos might do exactly that in one of the “Richard Dawkins interviews…” series on youtube. The one where he’s interviewing Nicholas Humphrey – part #1.

  68. John Morales says

    vladchituc:

    Yeah, I’m such a simpering little shiner, right?

    So it seems, and by your own admission, too!

    (Your pricked ego looks pretty flaccid, to me)

  69. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    That’s why I want a retraction. I’m being forthright with the facts here. I complained once, six months ago, and it had nothing in the least to do with Chris.

    If wishes were fishes we’d all have some fried. Who the fuck do you think you are? You think you’re going to climb the academic and professional ladder by tattling out people you don’t like and trying to get institutional authority to censure (note: not the same word as “censor”) people whose criticisms you don’t like?

    Whoo boy. Your actions on the Internet are going to follow you. And they’re not going to redound to your credit.

  70. says

    As a mild observation, nothing more…

    Even if we were to take Vlad at his word, that he was only upset that I said “fuck you” to him (for which, it should be known, I was completely out of line), does anybody notice how cavalier he is throwing it around to others?

    Vlad, since I’m on your side here, perhaps this is not the best way to convince others that you were all that offended. Then again, maybe you didn’t directly ask for me to be muzzled.

    Just trying to help you convince people of the purity of your intentions.

    JT

  71. vladchituc says

    Josh:

    I think I’m a student leader, who expects a certain amount of professionalism from the employees of an organization that represents me? I explicitly didn’t ask for censure. I explicitly didn’t ask for JT to be censored either. I simply brought about inappropriate actions to the attention of a friend of mine in the SSA.

    Yeah, I’m sure my future employees will be appalled.

    Abbot:

    That use is entirely ironic. That’s the point.

  72. says

    Do you really want me to unlimber my vocabulary on a lickspittle stooge and craven gossip?

    It seems my comment was pretty damned effective in dragging one rat out of his burrow.

  73. wbristol says

    I don’t remember signing a “Chris Stedman is infallible” contract when I joined the NonProphet Status team. I agree with him on a number of things, particularly related to the atheist-interfaith question, but that doesn’t make him immune from criticism, and I’m pretty sure no one has ever said he was (if they did, they’re totally, entirely, fucking wrong).

    If I’m in a cult because he’s my friend and I frequently blog for him, and because when he and his ideas (or at least what some people consider to be his ideas) are being attacked I wax defensive, okay, whatever. I guess I’m also in a cult for my little brother. Where’s the Kool-Aid?

    Walker

  74. John Morales says

    vladchituc

    You told me to fuck myself with a porcupine, and I need to grow up?

    lol.

    You didn’t lol when you were told to fuck off before, did ya?

    (A bit late now to start pretending)

  75. parasharkrishnamachari says

    Is there really a need to address this quack with the honorific of “Dr.”?

    I mean, I consider William Lane Craig to be a competent philosopher specifically when he’s addressing points that are more generic than religious apologetics (which he has not done for a few decades, but prior to that, he did), and he actually rightfully earned a valid PhD. But then when he does apply his craft to religion and “proofs” of god, he delves into modes of discourse so potently idiotic that I can not dare bring myself to address him as “Dr.” Craig.

    This guy is a chiropractor on top of being a fundy nutbar… He has a degree in baloney.

  76. screechymonkey says

    “And grow up, Vlad. For a Yale student you’re acting in a pitiably embarrassing passive-aggressive fashion.”

    Seriously. Vlad’s whining to the SSA sounds more Harvardian. See, e.g., the Winklevoss twins in The Social Network

  77. says

    vladchituc:

    Abbot:

    Actually, it’s “nigelTheBold.” “Abbot” is a title. A fake one — I am no true abbot. Nor is there a such thing as the “Hoppist Monks,” though there should be.

    That use is entirely ironic. That’s the point.

    Oh! You had a point? And you didn’t find it amusing that Josh was telling you to grow up after suggesting a rather personal encounter with a dead and (pardon the pun) raunchy porcupine?

    I thought you were expressing amusement. If not, my mistake.

  78. screechymonkey says

    “I simply brought about inappropriate actions to the attention of a friend of mine in the SSA.”

    Ah, yes. And my associate Johnny “the Stiletto” and I were simply bringing to that shopkeeper’s attention what a nice place he had and what a shame it would be if something were to happen to it. I don’t understand why would think something untoward was intended.

  79. vladchituc says

    JT,

    I have no problem with saying “fuck you” to anyone. Honestly, I wasn’t even at all offended. It was just inappropriate and reflected poorly on the SSA, so I brought its attention to the SSA.

    It was a short email I sent six months a go.

    I don’t know why anyone would doubt the “purity of my intentions.” If I were hiding anything I wouldn’t have mentioned I sent an email at all.

    It still has 1) nothing to do with Chris, 2) nothing to do with any complaints any of your recent posts might have received, and 3) I explicitly said that I didn’t want you muzzled. I just said that what you said reflects the SSA, and it wasn’t reflecting it particularly well.

    Anything else you’re extrapolating is baseless.

  80. says

    You do know there’s a difference between “waxing defensive” over Stedman’s ideas and haring off to tattle to a critic’s employers over the use of a naughty word, right?

  81. says

    Walker,

    I wax defensive

    Oh, I don’t think anybody’s upset over people defending Chris with arguments. That’s a noble and good thing to do.

    I think people are a little miffed that people defend Chris by complaining to their bosses, which was entirely Vlad’s right.

    They may also note that he claims it was because I said “Fuck you” to him, presumably out of the blue and with no motivation. Even if we take him at his word, one might wonder how noble his motivations were since he’s said “Fuck you” to a few people in this thread already. Some in here probably think that if Vlad thinks it’s inappropriate that he has a very odd way of showing it.

    But no, I don’t think anybody in here can hold a grudge for anybody defending Chris with arguments.

    Vlad’s likely trying to build bridges the best way he knows how.

    JT

  82. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    I think I’m a student leader, who expects a certain amount of professionalism from the employees of an organization that represents me?

    And I think I’m a homeowner and taxpayer who expects a certain amount of deference because I’m An Important Leader-Type Person. So what?

    I explicitly didn’t ask for censure.

    Don’t play legal word games; you’re transparent and not too good at it.

    I explicitly didn’t ask for JT to be censored either.

    Yawn.

    I simply brought about inappropriate actions to the attention of a friend of mine in the SSA.

    I know, I know, dumplin’. You were simply asking questions and raising concerns.

    If you’re going to lie at least do it well.

  83. Ms. Daisy Cutter says

    Never trust any Dr. Firstnames.

    Only two exceptions:

    1. Dr. Bob, from “Veterinarians’ Hospital” on The Muppet Show

    2. Medical kink roleplay with your partner, and only within the confines of your bedroom, dungeon, ER, etc. (E.g., “Awww, Dr. Syggyx, your hypodermic needle is much smaller than I thought it’d be!”)

  84. says

    I wasn’t even at all offended. It was just inappropriate and reflected poorly on the SSA, so I brought its attention to the SSA.

    Oh, fuck off, you dishonest sneak.

  85. says

    Vlad,

    I explicitly said that I didn’t want you muzzled.

    I believe you. I’m on your side here. You just told the organization I work for that I was representing them poorly (and you were right). You didn’t expect them to muzzle me over that – you told them so.

    JT

  86. vladchituc says

    Aww, now you guys are just being petty!

    1) Again, had nothing to do with Chris or his ideas. I wasn’t defending Chris. I don’t know how many times I can mention that my email had literally nothing in the least to do with Chris Stedman.

    2)Again, no problem with saying “fuck you” to anyone. It’s rude and disrespectful and I’m totally okay with that. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to alert the SSA that one of their employees is being rude and disrespectful to one of their student leaders. If you ask the SSA, I’m sure that’s something they’d want to know about.

    3) I actually don’t care about building bridges, but it’s always more fun to attack straw men then people’s actual positions

    <3

  87. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    Again, no problem with saying “fuck you” to anyone. It’s rude and disrespectful and I’m totally okay with that.

    I don’t think it’s unreasonable to alert the SSA that one of their employees is being rude and disrespectful to one of their student leaders.

    One of these things is not like the other.

  88. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    God, you’re such a transparent and brazen liar, Vlad. Do you even read yourself?

  89. vladchituc says

    JT,

    I honestly appreciate that you’re being mature about this. My email wasn’t meant to be a “tattle” or a formal complaint, just a heads up to a friend who might be concerned. I haven’t thought twice about it until this nonsense went down.

    Again, I don’t have a problem with you or the fact that you criticize Chris. Seriously, criticize Chris all day. Just criticize him for positions he actually holds.

    -Vlad

  90. vladchituc says

    Because I think there are certain standards of decency SSA employees should hold towards the students who make up the SSA?

    That makes me a brazen liar?

    Because I think saying “fuck you” is okay, but not to your students?

    I think I might be missing something.

  91. says

    Vlad,

    It’s clear you appreciate maturity, and I’m sure (and grateful) you appreciate mine.

    You were right, I was out of line.

    Like I said, you just told them you thought I was representing them poorly. You didn’t think they’d muzzle anybody over it. You probably thought nothing would come of it.

    Of course, one can only wonder why you did it in the first place then…

    JT

  92. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    I don’t know why you’re giving this guy the benefit of the doubt, JT. He doesn’t deserve it. As I said in comment 79, it’s all about him not wanting to cross swords in honest, if heated disagreement, and all about wanting to invoke the institutional power of SSA to reprimand you. Sure, if you lost your temper and were out of line, you should apologize. It’s happened to all of us.

    But vlad’s not an honest interlocutor. He’s playing at the “I just want reasonable conversation” game while sucking up to Chris Stedman and writing apologias for Stedman’s indefensible views while working to get the powers that be to chastise you for being “inappropriate.”

    This is classic passive-aggressive behavior. And make no mistake: it’s mostly aggressive.

  93. vladchituc says

    JT,

    The thinly veiled “I’m trying to be an adult here, but isn’t weird that . . .” isn’t really helping your case that you’re “on my side.”

    One can only wonder why you thought saying that was appropriate to begin with. I dropped a quick email to a friend of mine in the SSA saying “hey, JT did something not cool today. It makes the SSA look bad. Just a heads up.” I thought the SSA should know, if only to say “don’t treat our leaders inappropriately.” I’m not finding the subtle hints that I’m trying to censor you too appreciated.

    Josh (&JT)

    Is inductive reasoning that hard? It’s okay to be disrespectful and rude to one another, but not if you’re an employee of an organization, and your disrespect and rudeness is geared towards a student you represent.

    How is this position odd in the least?

  94. screechymonkey says

    Vlad: “Because I think there are certain standards of decency SSA employees should hold towards the students who make up the SSA?”

    But you didn’t think the SSA should do anything about it? That must have been quite an interesting email.

    “Hi, SSA. I think your employee J.T. is failing to live up to the standards of your organization, and that reflects badly on you as an organization. But don’t do anything about it, ok? I’m only telling you so you can know about it. But you certainly shouldn’t take any action. You should continue to let this employee reflect badly on the organization. The important thing is that you know he’s embarrassing you; you shouldn’t actually do anything about it. Love, Vlad.”

  95. says

    Josh,

    I cannot think of a rebuttal to your point at #107. Those do seem like completely diametric statements.

    I’m sure Vlad has a response though (a response that isn’t “fuck you”, of course).

    JT

  96. jflcroft says

    JT said:

    I don’t think anybody’s upset over people defending Chris with arguments. That’s a noble and good thing to do.

    If only that were true:

    PZ:

    Do you really want me to unlimber my vocabulary on a lickspittle stooge and craven gossip?

    It seems my comment was pretty damned effective in dragging one rat out of his burrow.

    PZ:

    I have been following your writing, often with great admiration, for many years now. I lost a huge amount of respect for you when you sent out tweets mocking people who were praying for the safety of their loved-ones after the earthquakes in Japan. I thought that showed a great lack of judgment and a possible flaw in your character. However, I continued to read your work because, as I said once before on here, I think sometimes you are absolutely right, and your blunt approach is sometimes, I think, necessary. I like your writing on feminism in the skeptic movement. I loved your presentation at Skepticon, which I thought was both entertaining and extremely valuable from a pedagogical standpoint – and you were very polite when we met briefly.

    So I have to ask, in response to your latest, are you joking, or are you truly as unpleasant as this comment makes you seem? You made a claim about a fellow free-thinker, based on gossip, which turned out to be completely inaccurate. And you have the temerity to brazenly insult the people who come here to ask you to provide evidence for your claim or to retract it?

    You are a leader in our movement, and many people look up to what you write. You have a high public profile. You are a professor at a university. You have a responsibility to your students and your institution to represent it well. And the way you deal with a disagreement on you blog is to insult other people in the most personal and vindictive way, as if demeaning others (without ever addressing their points) is a perfectly acceptable way to engage in a discussion with another human being.

    What do you think you are doing? This is not a reasonable, rational, or even adult way to behave. It’s the way bad-tempered children settle their disagreements (and even then, only the most troubled of children). It drags the discourse on this blog down into the muck. It is a great discredit to your work, and to you, personally.

    I have the great privilege of helping teach a number of university classes. The students in those classes, by necessity, look to me as some sort of authority figure. If I imagined for a moment that they would discover a side to me so thoroughly nasty as the aspect of your character you reveal on your blog, I would be deeply, profoundly ashamed of myself.

    I will accept reasoned, principled criticism from anyone who wishes to throw it my way. I will engage people in debate when they think I’m wrong – and I’ll admit when I’ve made a mistake. I want to be challenged because, as JT said earlier, that’s how we sharped our ideas and beliefs.

    But I will not be rhetorically spat at by a university professor who should know better, who almost never gives anything in the way of argument to support his point of view when challenged. Nothing I wrote here, or have ever written here, could possibly motivate the enormous level of disrespect and indecency you’ve shown repeatedly in your comments on this site.

    You should reconsider how you engage with people online.

    You are embarrassing yourself.

  97. says

    I think I’m a student leader, who expects a certain amount of professionalism from the employees of an organization that represents me?

    Creep.

    ***

    Seriously. Vlad’s whining to the SSA sounds more Harvardian.

    Nah. The whiffenpoof of entitlement was distinctive. :)

  98. says

    JFLCroft,

    You missed my question earlier. After reading Vlad’s comments (and his post), how sure were you that nobody could silence me on an issue?

    JT

  99. vladchituc says

    This is getting ridiculous, and apparently no one is actually reading what I’m writing, and instead attacking a straw man they want to disagree with.

    1) If saying “hey, one of your employees was a dick to a student today. That’s not cool. Maybe make sure he doesn’t do that” is somehow working to censor JT and his blog, then I am apparently far more powerful than I though.

    2) Are we seriously not getting how “being rude is fine, but don’t be rude to your students” works?

  100. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    Josh,

    I cannot think of a rebuttal to your point at #107. Those do seem like completely diametric statements.

    JT, one of the bitter pills to swallow is realizing that some people are not, in fact, honest at all about their motivations. And they have no compunction about lying to you and to themselves about them. Whether it’s conscious or not, such people manipulate, dissemble, and simper (when they need to appear gormless and innocent) in order to get what they want.

    I don’t think every person is utterly cynical in their motivations, but some are. And Chris Stedman and Vlad trip every warning flag I know of indicating passive-aggressive, dishonest wheedling. I wouldn’t turn my back on them. Ever. Even over something minor.

  101. elfsternberg says

    My daughter’s ballet class is in a small general-purpose professional building. In the atrium opposite the studio there is a chiropractic office and hanging in the window is a poster: “SUBLUXATION: The Silent Killer!”

    Needless to say, the place is strong evidence for crank magnetism, as along with the chiropractic, they have lots of “vitamins and supplements,” “natural remedies,” a multi-stage (and multi-pricy-bottle) sequence of Colon Cleanser, and a “personalized sequence of supplements attuned to your specific hormones guaranteed to help you lose that belly.”

  102. screechymonkey says

    Ah, finally some honesty, if inadvertently. How does “Maybe make sure he doesn’t do that” work other than by SSA telling J.T. to change his behavior, or by terminating his employment?

  103. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    James Croft, if you can’t see Chris Stedman and his type for the manipulative personalities they are, then you’re hopeless. Honestly. You’re not a stupid man. And I’m not saying this to be provocative for the sake of being provocative.

    For fuck’s sake wake up.

  104. vladchituc says

    And are people really not seeing a middle ground between

    “hey, SSA, one of your employees is acting inappropriately. Just a heads up. Maybe make sure he doesn’t do that”

    and

    “hey, SSA, fire JT and censor his blog”

  105. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    You brave soul. Keep fighting that good fight.

    I’m not brave at all. Just plain-spoken. I know a bullshitter when I see one, and you and Stedman are the Platonic examples.

  106. says

    I think I’m a student leader, who expects a certain amount of professionalism from the employees of an organization that represents me?

    employee employee employee employee employee

    “It’s alright! It’s OK! You will work for us someday!”

  107. screechymonkey says

    jflcroft won’t be around to continue the discussion after his flounce @123, but his comment about “You are a professor at a university. You have a responsibility to your students and your institution to represent it well.” is common enough to be worth continuing the discussion.

    I despise the snobbery inherent in such comments. It’s implied that P.Z.’s supposedly-reprehensible behavior would be understandable if he had some “less dignified” employment. Shape up, P.Z., you wouldn’t want to be mistaken for some vulgar blue-collar worker — why, you even swear like a (gasp!) sailor!

    So say the Great Communicators. It’s not surprising that this attitude seems to go hand-in-hand with the “faith in faith” and “but the little people need religion” routines.

  108. wbristol says

    JT,

    I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with saying “fuck you”. I don’t know the context of your past comments directed at Vlad, but if you think you were self-admittedly out of line, I think that’s the responsible thing to take note of and try to avoid in the future. We all fuck up sometimes, and I don’t see any reason we should be muzzled (not that anyone was asking for that, of course) just because we get worked up. Happens to all of us, certainly.

    I also, however, don’t see a large number of people rushing to Chris’s defense without arguments (except perhaps the sideswipes on Twitter, which seems like the last medium from which we should expect reasoned debate to arise). I saw Conrad’s post earlier, I saw Vlad’s blog about the matter, and I’ve seen the comments on this thread, the bulk of which I think do offer arguments in response to you and your likeminded bloggers’ criticisms of Chris and his work.

    Again, I agree with Chris on a lot of things about this movement. I think there is value in working with religious people, despite our very obvious intellectual differences, to accomplish goals that we both share. I still think there is value in discussing and addressing those differences, even if Chris doesn’t focus his work in that area. I’ve never heard or read Chris say that religious belief systems should be exempt from criticism. Again, if he ever did, he is fucking wrong.

    But if I sound “cult”ish, or like I’m “sucking up to Chris Stedman”, or trying to offer support for his “indefensible position”, then I don’t think I really belong as a part of this movement at all. JT, earlier you said that we should welcome discussion, and I absolutely agree. But there’s been a lot of accusations of blind allegiance here, and ever since I became an atheist, I’ve strove never to hold blind allegiance to anything ever again, to the extent that I did when I was religious. If someone wants to explain how I’m blindly following someone I consider to be my friend and colleague, whose vision I share and who I honestly find to be a goodhearted individual, please do. But at no point do I think I’ve been brainwashed.

    Walker

  109. screechymonkey says

    Vlad@134: OF COURSE there’s a middle ground between those two. It’s “tell J.T. to knock it off, with the implied threat that he’ll be fired if he doesn’t.” Which is exactly what you denied doing in the first place!

  110. says

    “hey, SSA, one of your employees is acting inappropriately. Just a heads up. Maybe make sure he doesn’t do that”

    and

    “hey, SSA, fire JT and censor his blog”

    Precisely guys. They were supposed to make sure I didn’t do that again by some way other than censoring me or firing me.

    Of course…I can’t think of what way that might be, but Vlad probably knows.

    Sarcasm with Vlad aside, I love the SSA and I love working for them. I’m not at all saying they weren’t completely justified in coming down on me for what I said (and some other things that got complained about but that aren’t being mentioned here).

    But seriously, this whole “I told them but didn’t expect anything to happen” excuse says a lot about Vlad, and it says a lot about his faux outrage that somebody could go to someone’s employers in response to criticism. Clearly, he doesn’t think it’s that bad. Maybe it’s like saying “fuck you” to someone – maybe it’s just not bad when Vlad does it.

    JT

    JT

  111. says

    What Josh said @ #129.

    ***

    My daughter’s ballet class is in a small general-purpose professional building. In the atrium opposite the studio…along with the chiropractic, they have lots of “vitamins and supplements,” “natural remedies,” a multi-stage (and multi-pricy-bottle) sequence of Colon Cleanser, and a “personalized sequence of supplements attuned to your specific hormones guaranteed to help you lose that belly.”

    The irony is that by far the best approach is probably…ballet.

  112. says

    screechymonkey:

    I despise the snobbery inherent in such comments.

    In addition to that, I despise the implied feudalism. It’s as if your employer owns you. “Oh, you represent us now. Do not say anything at any time that might make you look bad, because that makes us look bad.”

    This bondage is assumed by many people. Especially employers.

  113. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    But if I sound “cult”ish, or like I’m “sucking up to Chris Stedman”, or trying to offer support for his “indefensible position”, then I don’t think I really belong as a part of this movement at all.

    You’re probably right. You might be more comfortable in the Queers Who Consult Heteros To Ensure We Don’t Make Them Uncomfortable, or the Apologetic Atheists Who Assure Theists They Wish They Could Believe, or the I’m Just a Woman: What Would I Know? groups.

    After all, no one ever changed social culture by being rude.

  114. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    Again, no problem with saying “fuck you” to anyone.

    You claim you had no problem with “fuck you.” So you just whined to JT’s bosses for grins and giggles.

  115. screechymonkey says

    nigel, and it also contributes to a climate of silencing people. Now, unlike our friend Vlad, Croft wasn’t actually complaining to P.Z.’s employer about P.Z.’s blog. But the attitude that Croft is perpetuating — that everything P.Z. does reflects on his university — is exactly the attitude that all the Crackergate brigade was counting on when they DID try to get P.Z. fired.

    Tenured university professors are among the very few people in the U.S. who really can speak out with relative freedom from threats to their employment. I hate seeing that undermined.

  116. vladchituc says

    Again, because people seem intent not to read anything I write.

    Regarding the “fuck you” nonsense: Yeah, there’s nothing inherently wrong with saying fuck you. Which is why I’m fine saying it. It’s not like JT said fuck you to a friend of his on facebook, so I tattled to his bosses. He was disrespectful and rude to a student he is meant to represent, so I made it clear it was unacceptable.

    The idea that I’m trying to censor or fire JT Again, this is stupid. Talking to his bosses about how he talks to students on facebook has nothing to do with his blog, or who he talks about on it. And I don’t know how that’s meant to harm his job. I literally emailed a friend of mine (as far as I know, not even his boss. It’s not like I emailed the board of directors), and said “JT shouldn’t be doing shit like this.” If there was any implication there at all, it was “hey, JT’s not acting cool, talk to him as a friend about it.” If I wanted JT to see serious penalties over it, I would have emailed the administration.

    So can we drop charges that I’m somehow inconsistent for thinking “fuck you” is appropriate, but not to your students, and that I’m somehow trying to get JT fired?

  117. says

    ‘Tis Himself at #145

    Hey now. Vlad doesn’t have a problem with it, he just thought my bosses would have a problem with it. He was trying to help. No personal investment at all.

    JT

  118. vladchituc says

    And in case anyone wants to pretend I’m inconsistent in my last post (I realize now it’s ambiguous), it meant to read “talking to his bosses isn’t unreasonable, and I didn’t even do that

  119. vladchituc says

    JT,

    drop the victim complex. It’s not very becoming.

    I didn’t email your bosses. I didn’t object to you cussing on facebook. I emailed a mutual friend saying “hey, JT’s being a prick to students, that’s not okay.”

    Maybe practice some of that Reason you’re so fond of, and think a bit more critically about this.

  120. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    Vlad, you’re a liar and everyone here knows it. Cut the pretense and drop the bullshit or leave.

  121. vladchituc says

    Hey Josh,

    I’ll do that once you give me a good reason for me or anyone else to think I’m lying <3

  122. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    Also, “reason” is not capitalized unless it’s the first word of a sentence.

  123. jflcroft says

    screechymonkey, can you really not see the difference between the right to air one’s beliefs or opinions, however contrary to current mainstream thinking they might be (the right which is supposed to be protected by tenure, and which I have for a long time supported through my membership of Academics for Academic Freedom), and the sort of thoroughly vile personal attacks PZ goes in for regularly whenever he is subject to principled criticism?

    PZ is not airing a view here. He is peddling rumor and, when challenged on it (extremely respectfully), he pulls out childish, vindictive, nasty diatribes. THAT is nothing to do with his academic freedom. And it does reflect badly on his character.

    Think about it. If I were a student in PZ’s class, and I happened to have read the way he responds to criticism here, would I be more or less likely to be honest in my academic work? Or might I worry that I might be called a “lick-spittle”, a “rat”, a “wanker”, told to fuck off? This is not how adults behave toward one another. It is not how decent people behave. Stop protecting it. It makes you look silly.

  124. screechymonkey says

    Hey Vlad, since I’m not employed by the SSA, I guess I can say it:

    Go fuck yourself.

  125. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    Your posts show your dishonesty Vlad. You really can’t see this? Why do you keep digging? Are you constitutionally incapable of saying, “Hey, I was wrong, and I reacted badly and too quickly”?

  126. shemphair1 says

    Does facet joint inflammation induce radiculopathy?: an investigation using a rat model of lumbar facet joint inflammation.
    Tachihara H, Kikuchi S, Konno S, Sekiguchi M.
    Source

    Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Fukushima Medical University School of Medicine, Fukushima City, Fukushima, Japan. tachi@fmu.ac.jp
    Abstract
    STUDY DESIGN:

    The association between lumbar facet joint inflammation and radiculopathy was investigated using behavioral, histologic, and immunohistochemical testing in rats.
    OBJECTIVES:

    To develop a rat model of lumbar facet joint inflammation and ascertain whether facet joint inflammation induces radiculopathy using this model.
    SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA:

    Both mechanical and chemical factors have been identified as important for inducing radiculopathy. In lumbar spondylosis, facet joint osteophytes may contribute to nerve root compression, which may induce radiculopathy. Furthermore, inflammation may occur in the facet joint, as in other synovial joints. Inflamed synovium may thus release inflammatory cytokines and induce nerve root injury with subsequent radiculopathy.
    METHODS:

    A piece of gelatin sponge containing complete adjuvant was inserted into the L5-L6 facet joint in rats (arthritis group). Saline was used in the control group. Mechanical allodynia was determined using the von Frey test. Inflammatory cells infiltrating the epidural space were counted, and changes in cartilage were assessed histologically. Tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha-immunoreactive cells in the L5 dorsal root ganglion were counted.
    RESULTS:

    Mechanical allodynia was observed in the arthritis group from day 3, gradually recovering during the observation period. Significantly larger numbers of inflammatory cells had infiltrated the epidural space by days 3 and 7 in the arthritis group than in controls. Numbers of TNF-alpha-immunoreactive cells were significantly increased at days 1 and 3 in the arthritis group compared with controls. Predominantly small nociceptive neurons were stained.
    CONCLUSIONS:

    When inflammation was induced in a facet joint, inflammatory reactions spread to nerve roots, and leg symptoms were induced by chemical factors. These results support the possibility that facet joint inflammation induces radiculopathy.

  127. vladchituc says

    screechy:

    Awesome! Right back at you!

    Josh,

    aw you’re trying so hard. If my posts show dishonesty, link me to one.

  128. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    James Croft, stuff your prissy objections up your ass. Do you ever engage in substantive disagreement, or is it all about proper language for you? Huh? Are you actually working hard to live up to the stereotype of an affected British academic?

    Jeezis – I know you know better than this, having read your posts and conversed with you before. It’s maddening that you won’t actually engage the real, substantive questions people have posed to you here! Put the smelling salts down for one fucking second?

  129. says

    shemphair1:

    These results support the possibility that facet joint inflammation induces radiculopathy.

    (Emphasis added)

    Excellent! That does look like an interesting study.

    So, how does this possibility lead you to claim it as fact?

    It reduces inflammation in tissue surrounding the joint(spinal nerve roots)which reduces or slows down degenerative processes.

    Also, do you have clinical evidence to support chiropracty as the appropriate therapy for inflammation? That’s really the big one.

    But seriously: thanks for the citation. It’s better than most folks ever accomplish.

  130. shemphair1 says

    Repost #28
    I find it kind of funny that so many “free thinkers” are so closed minded. I’m a Chiropractor who is also a Biologist, Chemist and atheist.
    I won’t try to defend what you imagine Chiropractic is. I’ll tell you what I do every day. I optimize spinal joint function. This benefits the body in two primary ways. It reduces inflammation in tissue surrounding the joint(spinal nerve roots)which reduces or slows down degenerative processes. Are we to believe that a swollen nerve root is not going to effect it’s target tissue(ie:sciatica,Neuropathy) or that low grade inflammation plus time is not related to osteoarthritis. Lets science up everyone.
    Anecdotal evidence standards should be applied equally for or against chiropractic.
    Chiropractor do not make Pharmaceutical recommendations or they lose their license.

  131. littlebear says

    vlad
    you might not be lying, though you still refuse to admit that you did tattle to a person’s boss, but you were definitely acting like a child.
    Don’t you remember in first grade when you learned that disagreements should be handled between the two people disagreeing before you go tattle? I mean, really, which sounds more mature “JT, I think your reaction was inappropriate and would appreciate if you did not use strong language with students who you are representing. Thanks” or “JT was mean to me, make him stop using that word!!!!!!!!!!!! (but don’t actually do anything about it because you’re just a mutual friend)”?
    Doesn’t one of those kind of sound like a child saying “teacher teacher teacher, he was mean. Make him stop”

  132. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    principled criticism?

    You think this is principled, Croft? You’ve lost your ever-loving mind. You’ve abandoned it to partisan defense of friends.

  133. shemphair1 says

    FROM: J Chiropractic Medicine 2008 (Sep); 7 (3): 115—125

    Christensen KD, Buswell K

    Rhode Island Spine Center, Pawtucket, RI 02860, USA. rispine@aol.com

    Objective: The objective of this study was to gather descriptive information concerning the clinical outcomes of patients with cervical and lumbar radiculopathy treated with a nonsurgical, chiropractic treatment protocol in combination with other interventions.

    Methods: This is a retrospective review of 162 patients with a working diagnosis of radiculopathy who met the inclusion criteria (312 consecutive patients were screened to obtain the 162 cases). Data reviewed were collected initially, during, and at the end of active treatment. The treatment protocol included chiropractic manipulation, neuromobilization, and exercise stabilization. Pain intensity was measured using the numerical pain rating scale.

    Results: Of the 162 cases reviewed, 85.5% had resolution of their primary subjective radicular complaints. The treatment trial was 9 (mean) treatment sessions. The number of days between the first treatment date and the first symptom improvement was 4.2 days (median). There were 10 unresolved cases referred for epidural steroid injection, 10 unresolved cases referred for further medication management, and 3 cases referred for and underwent surgery.

    Conclusion: The conservative management strategy we reviewed in our sample produced favorable outcomes for most of the patients with radiculopathy. The strategy appears to be safe. Randomized clinical trials are needed to separate treatment effectiveness from the natural history of radiculopathy.

  134. littlebear says

    shemphair,
    To be honest, right now I think chiropractic is pure bull, but maybe I haven’t seen one side of this argument. So if you don’t mind me asking a few questions that could change my opinion, I’ll just go ahead and do that.
    1. do chiropractors need a medical license and degree to practice?
    2. do chiropractors have the knowledge to be able to see if there is a serious problem that needs a specialist? (I don’t mean specific chiropractors, I mean is it a necessity that they can identify sever problems)
    3. Is there anything a chiropractor can do that a physical therapist can’t?

    thanks

  135. jflcroft says

    Josh, are you quite alright? Just earlier in the post you agreed with my position on this! This is what you said:

    So, no, Stedman didn’t deserve to be dragged into this conversation for something he never did. He’d be completely justified in being righteously pissed off about it.

    I haven’t made any claim here that is stronger than what you yourself have accepted to be true! So I’m baffled as to what you are on about. My substantive point is that PZ has behaved improperly and should retract or modify his post. You agree he’s acted improperly in dragging Stedman into this where he doesn’t belong. So we don’t disagree, as far as I can see. What’s your problem?

    And I have quite enough things to stick up my arse, thank you.

    SC: You have resisted any attempt of mine to reach out to you for reasonable discussion, here, on your own blog, and elsewhere. On every occasion you’ve shown yourself to be completely uninterested in reasonable discourse. I have made my good faith effort. I don’t have unlimited time to spend arguing with you when you won’t see reason and you see enemies everywhere.

  136. Aquaria says

    I think you’re right about the importance – the necessity – of self-policing and robust internal criticism. It’s the sheer amount of time and emotional intensity poured into raking over every little thing everyone says which is exhausting and, in my view, ultimately unproductive.

    Evidence, or fuck off.

    I think we should generally make an assumption of good faith when it comes to those who are ostensibly on our side, and focus more of our efforts toward battling common foes.

    I don’t give a shit what you think. Say something worthwhile, or fuck off. You’re not somebody I want to have as an ally. I’d always be worried about when you’d back stab me to kiss some christard’s ass. And douchenozzles like you always do that, sooner or later.

    As for the likelihood of anyone successfully shutting you up? Having read your blistering writing for a while, and seen you in action at Skepticon (and heard your magnificent voice!), I don’t think anybody would stand a chance!

    Why is it that Uncle Toms and christards always equate passive-aggressive douchebaggery with thinking they’re being so fucking clever? Do they think that others can’t see when they’re obviously being petty fuckfaces who are full of shit?

    Fuck off.

    You should reconsider how you engage with people online.

    You are embarrassing yourself.

    Look in the fucking mirror, you dishonest piece of shit.

    Fuck off.

  137. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    I agreed that Stedman was unfairly maligned with rumors of his (not true) legal threats.

    That’s all. The rest of my comments about him stand, James. This is what’s known as a nuanced stance, is it not?

  138. shemphair1 says

    coURsEs bY tRiMEstER
    First trimester credits
    ANAT51200 Neuroanatomy I 5
    ANAT51210 Spinal Anatomy I 2
    ANAT51202 Gross Anatomy I 6
    ANAT51208 Embryology 5
    CBPM51110 Rights & Responsibilities 1
    LIBR51110 Information Literacy 1
    PHCH51311 Biochemistry I 5
    PHCH51341 Neurophysiology I 3
    PHIL51111 Philosophy I 2
    RSCH51110 Foundations of Evidence
    Based Clinical Practice 1
    TOTAL 31
    second trimester
    ANAT52204 Gross Anatomy II 6
    ANAT52211 Spinal Anatomy II 5
    PHCH52305 Biochemistry II 5
    PHCH52331 Cellular Physiology 3
    PHCH52337 Neurophysiology II 3
    PHCH52338 Endocrinology 3
    PHIL52112 Philosophy II 2
    TOTAL 27
    ird trimester
    ANAT61205 Organ Histology 5
    ANAT61206 Neuroanatomy II 5
    PATH61408 Pathology I 4
    PATH61415 Immunology 3
    PATH61416 Microbiology 5
    PHCH61339 Cardiovascular Pulmonary
    Physiology (C-V-P Physiology)
    4
    PHCH61342 Neurophysiology III 2
    TECH61602 Palpation 2
    TOTAL 30
    Fourth trimester
    PATH62414 Public Health 3
    PATH62410 Pathology II 7
    PHCH62306 Nutrition 3
    PHCH62346 Renal Physiology 3
    PHIL62113 Philosophy III 2
    ROEN62505 Radiology I-Introduction
    to Bone Imaging 6
    TECH62603 Toggle Recoil 5
    TECH62605 Instrumentation 2
    TOTAL 31
    Fifth trimester
    DIAG71707 Neuromusculoskeletal
    Diagnosis I 5
    DIAG71708 Physical Diagnosis 10
    PATH71413 Toxicology 3
    REHB71851 Physiotherapy I 4
    ROEN71506 Radiology II-Advanced
    Interpretation 4
    TECH71604 Cervical Technique 5
    TECH71613 Spinal Biomechanics 4
    TOTAL 35
    sixth trimester
    CLIN72803 Introduction to
    Clinical Practice 2
    DIAG72703 Neuromusculoskeletal
    Diagnosis II 5
    DIAG72713 Obstetrics and Pediatrics 5
    PHIL72114 Philosophy IV 2
    REHB72852 Physiotherapy II 4
    ROEN72507 Radiology III-Technology
    & Protection 6
    TECH72606 oraco Lumbar Technique5
    TECH72612 Pelvic Technique 5
    TOTAL 34
    seventh trimester
    CBPM81140 Health Care Marketing 2
    CLIN81807 Clinical Methods 5
    CLIN81806 Emergency Procedures 3
    DIAG81705 Visceral Disorders &
    Laboratory Interpretation 5
    DIAG81716 Clinical Psychology 2
    ROEN81504 Radiology IVPositioning
    5
    TECH81614 Technique Principles
    and Practice 5
    TECH81615 Extremity Adjusting 5
    TOTAL 32
    87
    Eighth trimester
    CBPM82141 Financial Management 3
    CLIN82801 Legal Issues 2
    CLIN82816 Clinic I 14
    CLIN82820 Clinical Case
    Correlations I 3
    CLIN82850 OSCE – Clinical Exam 0
    CLIN85851 OSCE – Radiology Exam 0
    DIAG82717 Gender Related-Health 4
    PHIL82115 Philosophy V 4
    ROEN82508 Special Topics 2
    TOTAL 32
    Ninth trimester
    CBPM91142 Practice Management 5
    CLIN91802 Regulatory Issues 2
    CLIN91817 Clinic II 14
    CLIN91821 Clinical Case
    Correlations II 3
    DIAG91712 Geriatrics 2
    PHIL91116 Philosophy VI 2
    RSCH81841 Evidence Based
    Chiropractic 2
    TOTAL 30
    tenth trimester
    CBPM92143 Planning for Success 1
    CLIN92822 Clinical Case
    Correlations III 6
    CLIN92815 Clinic III 19
    TOTAL 26
    TOTAL 308 Credits

  139. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    Yes, I think PZ ought to do an update clarifying this, and I assume he will.

    Are you satisfied on this account yet, Josh?

    No. I hope he does.

  140. shemphair1 says

    DOCTOR OF CHIROPRACTIC
    DEGREE
    e academic core program of the Davenport
    Campus’ Clinical Practice Curriculum consists of
    308 credit hours of course study and includes
    4,620 contact hours of lecture, laboratory and
    clinical education. It comprises 10 trimesters of
    education articulated in a prerequisite sequence.
    e degree of Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.) is
    awarded upon successful completion of the required
    course of study prescribed by graduation.
    In order to receive a degree from Palmer College
    of Chiropractic, Davenport Campus, a student
    must have satisfied all academic and clinical
    requirements and must have earned not less than
    the final 25 percent of the total credits required for
    the D.C. degree from Palmer, allowing up to 75
    percent of the total credits through advanced
    standing.
    e academic program may be completed in
    three and one-third calendar years of continuous
    residency. Graduation, however, is contingent
    upon completion of the program in accordance
    with the standards of the College, which meet or
    exceed those of its accrediting agencies.

  141. nightshadequeen says

    I find it kind of funny that so many “free thinkers” are so closed minded. I’m a Chiropractor who is also a Biologist, Chemist and atheist.

    Am I the only one who thinks that actual chemists and biologists don’t capitalize the words in the middle of a sentence?

  142. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    And I’m confident you, unpronounceable symbol, will periodically remind me. As is right and fair.

  143. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    There’s so much goddamn random capitalization in the US you’d think we were writing Elizabethan English. Drives me nuts.

  144. jflcroft says

    Josh, I’m not here to get into an argument about Chris Stedman’s views on every topic. I have already responded to your criticism of his piece on Sojourners. I am here to hold PZ accountable for the way he has acted in this instance. Since we agree on the substantive issue I see no quarrel with you.

    Aquaria: You have illustrated precisely what’s so very wrong about the way discussion is conducted on this blog.

  145. shemphair1 says

    I’m not sure what limits are placed on Physical therapy license. My license allows me to provide most of the same modalities as PT. It’s different from state to state. To practice Chiropractic I had to pass a series of four comprehensive National boards that involved everything from basic Biochemistry to Diagnosis. My personal philosophy is I control and manage joint dysfunction as long as the outcomes are good. If not I refer out in a timely manor.

  146. says

    SC: You have resisted any attempt of mine to reach out to you for reasonable discussion, here, on your own blog, and elsewhere. On every occasion you’ve shown yourself to be completely uninterested in reasonable discourse. I have made my good faith effort. I don’t have unlimited time to spend arguing with you when you won’t see reason and you see enemies everywhere.

    Well, no. I don’t think you’re fundamentally an unreasonable person, James. You have a personal blind spot that leads you to say silly and indefensible things and to lash out at those with whom you’d otherwise agree.

    (You’re correct about my non-response to your comment on my blog. I was actually interested in that collaboration, but circumstances intervened and I’m still undecided about your trustworthiness…. So I do apologize for not answering. I did think you were being genuine, and appreciated the gesture.)

  147. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    Since we agree on the substantive issue I see no quarrel with you.

    Do we? I ask that sincerely.

    Aquaria: You have illustrated precisely what’s so very wrong about the way discussion is conducted on this blog.

    James, if you can’t stand the vulgarity here, then leave. Seriously. You know what you’re going to get here, and you know no one gives a shit about your prissy objections to language. You either want to engage here, or you don’t. If you don’t, that’s fine. But lay off the school-marm nonsense. We’re all grown-ups (yes, even those of us who cuss all the time).

    Shorter me: if you don’t like cussing then fucking leave.

  148. jflcroft says

    It’s not fucking cussing. I couldn’t give a shit about cussing. It’s demeaning personal attacks that I object to. There’s a big difference between cussing and name-calling, and a big difference between name-calling as a corollary to argument and name-calling as a substitute for argument. I think there are standards of decency that apply everywhere, online or off, and that we should try to meet them. I don’t think that because you are posting on the internet means you are excused from fundamental human decency. Being concerned for a minimum level of respect for other human beings isn’t prissy: it’s humane.

    SC: I’m sorry that we couldn’t collaborate, then. The offer’s always open if you find the time.

  149. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    And I think your friend Chris Stedman offends human decency on a regular basis, James. I think he sucks up to power because of his privileged niche, I think he’s very young and inexperienced, and because of that, I think he makes extremely bad arguments that help prop up the hegemony of straight/christian culture, even if he doesn’t mean to.

    And I think you spend a great deal of time supporting his effort because he’s your friend, and I think you’re wrong to do so.

    How’s that for a cuss-free and substantive disagreement?

  150. allencdexter says

    Most chiropractic is a money game with little behind it, but there are some skilled manipulators out there who know what they are about.

    A few years back I forgot I was in a high cabbed truck and stepped out to land very hard on one foot. I threw something out in my pelvic girdle. A few days later, as I was driving home, I happened upon a radio program by a doctor (I don’t know if he was a chiropractor) who described exactly what I was suffering from and how to adjust it by leaning against a wall and lifting my leg straight up behind me. I followed instructions, felt something move in the small of my back and the pain disappeared. I kept doing that for a few days and never had a problem again.

  151. screechymonkey says

    jflcroft@158:

    screechymonkey, can you really not see the difference between the right to air one’s beliefs or opinions, however contrary to current mainstream thinking they might be (the right which is supposed to be protected by tenure, and which I have for a long time supported through my membership of Academics for Academic Freedom), and the sort of thoroughly vile personal attacks PZ goes in for regularly whenever he is subject to principled criticism?

    Nice false dichotomy. I don’t agree with you that PZ engages in “vile personal attacks” whenever he is subject to principled criticism.

    As a more general matter, restricting the “tone” in which one speaks IS a restriction on the right to air one’s beliefs or opinions. As the United States Supreme Court pointed out in Cohen v. California, requiring someone to say “I Strongly Disagree withe the Draft” instead of “Fuck the Draft” is a restriction on speech.

    PZ is not airing a view here. He is peddling rumor and, when challenged on it (extremely respectfully), he pulls out childish, vindictive, nasty diatribes. THAT is nothing to do with his academic freedom. And it does reflect badly on his character.

    I disagree with your characterization of PZ’s response. As to character, I think more highly of his than of a sanctimonious prig like you.

    Think about it. If I were a student in PZ’s class, and I happened to have read the way he responds to criticism here, would I be more or less likely to be honest in my academic work? Or might I worry that I might be called a “lick-spittle”, a “rat”, a “wanker”, told to fuck off?

    How would YOU react? Well, I assume you would collapse with a case of the vapours. Frankly, I’m astonished you’ve managed to survive this long.

    How would a reasonable student react? By understanding that people don’t always talk in their private capacities the way they do in professional ones. By being “honest in [their] academic work” because it’s… the right thing to do? (What a weird accusation — you think PZ’s students are committing academic fraud because he says mean things about Stedman? You apparently think very little of his students.)

    This is not how adults behave toward one another. It is not how decent people behave. Stop protecting it. It makes you look silly.

    Adults don’t clutch their pearls every time someone speaks bluntly.

    The only one looking silly here (other than Vlad) is you.

  152. John Morales says

    [meta]

    jflcroft:

    I think there are standards of decency that apply everywhere, online or off, and that we should try to meet them.

    Bah. As if I care what you think about standards.

    This ain’t your blog.

    Tell you what, you stick to your standards, others will stick to theirs.

    (You don’t like it here? Then go)

  153. says

    Nice false dichotomy. I don’t agree with you that PZ engages in “vile personal attacks” whenever he is subject to principled criticism.

    That’s right. He doesn’t do it whenever he is subject to principled criticism.

    Just sometimes.

    The phrase “dishonest hypocrite and slinger of innuendo” wasn’t intended to be ironic, I think.

  154. shemphair1 says

    allencdexter

    Nice adjustment. Sometimes people need a little help with the correction or sometimes it’s chronic or a byproduct of a repetitive stress or old injury.

  155. says

    I think there are standards of decency that apply everywhere, online or off, and that we should try to meet them.

    Yes, especially standards of (intellectual) honesty. Standards which – as we’ve shown time and time again – have not been met by Stedman or others connected to NPS. I’ve seen blatant, shocking dishonesty from them on a regular basis, especially about us. This harms all atheists, especially those with little power.

    I’m not going to argue this (you know I have the links). The record is on the internet and available to anyone.

  156. screechymonkey says

    Oh, and if you do believe that “there are standards of decency that apply everywhere, online or off, and that we should try to meet them,” does that not apply to everyone? University professors and ditchdiggers alike? So of what relevance is PZ’s occupation?

  157. littlebear says

    So if a chiropractic degree is so intensive, why don’t doctors give out referrals to them? I’m pretty sure if someone has a joint problem they are referred to a physical therapist even if it is a back problem.
    And if you need a degree to practice, how can chiropractors put up obvious medical misinformation and not lose their license? If a doctor’s office had signs that told people to throw their medicine away and get massages, they would be closed down quickly.
    The only reason I can think is that the degree is bunk.

  158. screechymonkey says

    lovemoderately@192: If someone is a dishonest hypocrite and slinger of innuendo, then is it a “vile personal attack” to say so? If so, then the world needs more vile personal attacks.

  159. says

    And I think your friend Chris Stedman offends human decency on a regular basis, James. I think he sucks up to power because of his privileged niche, I think he’s very young and inexperienced, and because of that, I think he makes extremely bad arguments that help prop up the hegemony of straight/christian culture, even if he doesn’t mean to.

    And I think you spend a great deal of time supporting his effort because he’s your friend, and I think you’re wrong to do so.

    Yes. This.

  160. F says

    vladchituc

    1) Again, had nothing to do with Chris or his ideas. I wasn’t defending Chris. I don’t know how many times I can mention that my email had literally nothing in the least to do with Chris Stedman.

    Weird, because I don’t see anyone claiming this in this instance. You keep bringing it up. Talk about strawmen.

    2)Again, no problem with saying “fuck you” to anyone. It’s rude and disrespectful and I’m totally okay with that. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to alert the SSA that one of their employees is being rude and disrespectful to one of their student leaders. If you ask the SSA, I’m sure that’s something they’d want to know about.

    First off, what the hell do you expect is going to happen when you complain to someone’s employer about them? Unless the employer simply disregards you for the wanker you are, and sometimes even if they do, it is generally not a good thing for the object of you complaint.

    Secondly, yes, it was unreasonable, but you are certainly within your rights to behave like a spoiled child. But what the hell do rights have to do with this?

    Third, is JT your instructor, and you, his student, and you were in a class session? Or were both of you interacting as employees of the SSA in an official capacity? Or were you both just engaging in communication of Fuckbook? Because anyone while acting outside of an official capacity and official relations should be able to tell you to go fuck yourself, whether or not you like it. And from your display here, I can imagine why someone would say such a thing to you. So fuck you.

    This is getting ridiculous, and apparently no one is actually reading what I’m writing,

    Yes, they have. You are the one having issue with comprehension.

    He was disrespectful and rude to a student he is meant to represent, so I made it clear it was unacceptable.

    Again, this was in an officially structured relationship or not?

    Talking to his bosses about how he talks to students on facebook has nothing to do
    with his blog, or who he talks about on it.

    It shouldn’t have anything to do with what he says on Facebook either, moron. You’re halfway there. But I thought that you didn’t talk to his bosses – you keep swearing up and down to that.

    Can I ask what the hell it is with you Faithiest-associated types that you are so hung up on this leader/leadership thing? Only sheep need a leader. What is it with this petty hierarchy shit that fascinates you so? Constantly referring to yourselves as “leader”, or declaring that someone else is a “leader” and should follow your particular rules of decorum? This is why a lot of atheists think the accomodationists are a bunch of idiots.

    -As an aside, here is another reason:

    wbristol

    Again, I agree with Chris on a lot of things about this movement. I think there is value in working with religious people, despite our very obvious intellectual differences, to accomplish goals that we both share. I still think there is value in discussing and addressing those differences, even if Chris doesn’t focus his work in that area.

    So what the heck is Chris on about? He doesn’t actually do any work in this area, he just like to yap about it a lot? He wants to (like you) criticize some atheists for their tone? So what damn goal is he working for aside from seeing his own name and face in as many places as possible? Even Mooney isn’t so self-aggrandizing. He has people who write blogs for him? As if he were a publishing organization? And so either he or his bloggers can say, “Chris didn’t say that or necessarily agree with it”? Come on, now.

    jflcroft

    First, it was an accusation, then a suggestion, and now rumors? Which is it, if any, and be precise.

    PZ is not airing a view here. He is peddling rumor and, when challenged on it (extremely respectfully), he pulls out childish, vindictive, nasty diatribes.

    No, he actually never responded to your request for a correction or retraction. If that is your problem, press that point. PZ responded to the rest of the ridiculous commentary from The Party of Stedman. Which was worthy of nothing but another of those oh so offensive “fuck-you”s. You hadn’t challenged anything but the patience of a bunch of people who, oddly enough, don’t always agree with PZ and make their objections known.

    This is not how adults behave toward one another. It is not how decent people behave.

    Says who? This is the problem with you tone trolls, especially the fathiest/accomodationist tone trolls. Where the hell do you get off? You can be as offensive as you like, so long as you don’t use any rude words? Get bent.

  161. Brownian says

    I think there are standards of decency that apply everywhere, online or off, and that we should try to meet them.

    Right. One is not being a backstabbing, two-faced, I’ll-throw-everyone-else-under-the-bus-if-it-means-I-get-a-head-pat-from-a-theist-and-validate-my-self-perception-as-a-bridge-builder asshole.

    But, I guess we have different standards.

    And nobody, but nobody who writes such manipulative, self-serving garbage as is the content of comment #123 has any business talking about what adults do.

  162. says

    I aired a rumor based on a fact: that complaints have been levied against JT by people trying to silence his criticisms of Chris Stedman. We have now cenveniently had several people show up here and confirm that at least one of Stedman’s lackeys has been carping to the SSA over a stupid facebook tiff.

    Them’s the facts. And combined with my contempt for Stedman’s habit of sucking up to theists at every opportunity, it’s been a nice opportunity to express my dislike of the Stedmanites.

  163. says

    Still can’t get over:

    saying “hey, one of your employees was a dick to a student today. That’s not cool. Maybe make sure he doesn’t do that”

    This is possibly the most revolting comment I’ve read in a long while. Because I start to ask, “Just who does this douche think he is?” but then I know exactly who, and realize that he can stay in his little bow-tied bubble just as he could’ve in the 1950s or the 1920s without ever understanding how revolting that comment and the attitude it so perfectly encapsulates are. Which would be a shame.

    I honestly hope that doesn’t happen. Perhaps Vlad could stick around here, as Walton did, and learn and grow…

    I would be nicer, I promise!

  164. vladchituc says

    F,

    Weird, because I don’t see anyone claiming this in this instance. You keep bringing it up. Talk about strawmen.

    Really? Quoting PZ:

    Oh, and I don’t have an employer who will pay any attention to you if go whimpering to them with tears in your eyes, crying “He’s picking on Chris! Waaaaah!”

    And quoting JT later:

    Then it is revealed that Chris gives a platform to people who do complain to people’s employer for harsh language and when Chris is criticized.

    There are more, but I think you can find more examples if you try.

    And the secular student alliance is an organization that works with campus atheist groups. I was the president of such a campus atheist group. JT, an employee of the SSA, I think can reasonably expected not to be a prick to the students he represents. If my language describing the situation was unclear, I’m sorry.

    And I’m not an accomodationist. Thanks!

  165. shemphair1 says

    I get referrals from MD all of the time. For the most part they only prescribe and order imaging initially. If the problem is not responding to my treatments then I refer out for pain management or anti-inflammatory injections. The last step in the process is MRI and/or orthopedic surgeon consultation. Basically, I tell my patients that IF I’m effective I’m going to be the easiest and most economical solution.
    My first priority is to rule out Chiropractic as a solution to their problem.

  166. Brownian says

    Can I ask what the hell it is with you Faithiest-associated types that you are so hung up on this leader/leadership thing?

    Yeah. Seriously.

    How fucked in the head are you assholes? It’s creepy, it’s pathetic, and what’s worse; you use this daddy-fixation as an emotional tactic when you don’t get your way.

    Read 123 again. That’s some Misery shit right there.

  167. says

    lovemoderately@192: If someone is a dishonest hypocrite and slinger of innuendo, then is it a “vile personal attack” to say so?

    No, I suppose that would be a non-vile personal attack.

    It’s vile when it’s not accurate, as it wasn’t in that case.

  168. Brownian says

    JT, an employee of the SSA, I think can reasonably expected not to be a prick to the students he represents.

    To every student in every case? Most certainly not.

  169. says

    JT, an employee of the SSA, I think can reasonably expected not to be a prick to the students he represents.

    I will fight this for as long as I’m able. JT is not your employee.

    Try to think about how you would address the situation if you considered this person your equal, or, better, an experienced activist from whom you could learn. Then do that.

  170. says

    I’m a smidge late to the party, but Christopher Maloney did come close to filing a lawsuit against me. I will have a post up about the whole ordeal once my lawyer vets everything.

  171. screechymonkey says

    “JT, an employee of the SSA, I think can reasonably expected not to be a prick to the students he represents. ”

    But is he being a “prick” merely by saying “fuck you,” especially to someone who — as you have repeatedly assured us — was not offended by it?

  172. vladchituc says

    I’m not claiming JT is my employee. He’s an employee of a group that exists to serve student groups like mine.

    I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a group that’s meant to serve students like, have their employees not say “fuck you” to me over petty internet drama.

    If I weren’t an SSA leader, I wouldn’t have given a fuck or thought to email anyone.

    I don’t get the issue here.

  173. says

    I can’t help but notice Vlad’s evasiveness. First he acts as if JT’s rudeness were directed at some poor student, and dear Vlad is just being protective; then we learn the student was himself, and instead he’s just defending himself. But what we’re still missing is any information about why JT so rudely dismissed Vlad. Are we supposed to assume he was just innocently minding his business when JT abruptly and without reason leapt up and verbally mugged him?

    Given his behavior here, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Vlad was again being a passive-aggressive whiner.

  174. Active Margin says

    I’m curious, confused, or both. What exactly was it that lead JT to say such a horrible thing to offend you so? It seems it wasn’t “petty internet drama” or it wouldn’t warrant telling on him.

  175. Classical Cipher, Murmur Muris, OM says

    I’m not claiming JT is my employee. He’s an employee of a group that exists to serve student groups like mine.

    Your obnoxiously entitled attitude toward him suggests that you think of him as someone with an obligation to you based on his employment. Since we all know he’s not your employee, you ought to rethink that attitude.

  176. vladchituc says

    PZ,

    How was I evasive? I was always upfront that JT’s rudeness was directed towards me, and that’s why I complained. I openly admitted as much in my blog post that I linked to, and this was my first comment on your blog about the topic:

    PZ,

    I entirely acknowledge I complained about JT. Once. Six months ago. Not at all related to Chris.

    Because as a student leader for my school’s SSA, JT acted inappropriately, unprofessionally, and immaturely to a student leader he is meant to represent.

    If that doesn’t warrant legitimate complaint, I don’t know what does.

    I think it’s pretty clear that I’m referencing my status as a student leader, which is why my complaint is relevant. And considering again, I say as much in my blog post, and say it frequently later, I don’t know how I’m evasive in the least.

    I also don’t know why the specifics of mine and JT’s disagreement is in the least bit relevant. I’m fairly certain I was actually explicitly claiming JT had no evidence for the claims he was making. JT can correct me if I’m wrong.

    Even if I was a “passive-aggressive whiner,” I wonder whether the SSA would approve of his conduct?

  177. Brownian says

    I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a group that’s meant to serve students like, have their employees not say “fuck you” to me over petty internet drama.

    I don’t get the issue here.

    Pro-tip: when in a discussion, try to focus less on “I think” or “I don’t think” and more on what others are saying or asking. Of course you won’t fucking get it if all you’re going to do is reiterate your position.

    What are you, legacy?

  178. vladchituc says

    Class,

    If you’re inferring an attitude, it’s unwarranted.

    Employees of the SSA shouldn’t be dicks to student leaders in the SSA.

    I think if you asked the SSA, they’d agree with me.

    I don’t see any entitlement here.

  179. says

    I’m not claiming JT is my employee. He’s an employee of a group that exists to serve student groups like mine.

    …I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a group that’s meant to serve students…

    Ah. I thought you saw him as your employee, when in fact you regard him, and the whole organization, as there to serve you.

    That’s much more clear. My mistake.

  180. Trebuchet says

    @Shemphair1: As the thread has been totally hijacked (and I kind of sorry to see PZ participating in that instead of sending the discussion off into TET or something), there’s not much point in disucssion of the original topic except to say I have personal experience of two chiropractors telling my family members to discontinue medications for which there is no possible chiropractic treatment. You say they’d lose their licenses for that. They should, but they don’t. I’m glad you seem to be an ethical one. I think most are not.

  181. says

    Because as a student leader for my school’s SSA, JT acted inappropriately, unprofessionally, and immaturely to a student leader he is meant to represent.

    You do realize how confused this sentence is, right?

    I think if you asked the SSA, they’d agree with me.

    I don’t see any entitlement here.

    I assume Vlad does not represent any significant portion of the SSA. If he does, the problem runs deep.

  182. vladchituc says

    RE PZ 201

    I aired a rumor based on a fact: that complaints have been levied against JT by people trying to silence his criticisms of Chris Stedman.

    You did no such thing. You aired a rumor that Chris was behind such complaints.

    We have now cenveniently had several people show up here and confirm that at least one of Stedman’s lackeys has been carping to the SSA over a stupid facebook tiff.

    Yes, a friend of mine that as far as I know isn’t in a leadership position. I didn’t email the board of directors or anything like that. I sent a personal email to a friend.

    Them’s the facts. And combined with my contempt for Stedman’s habit of sucking up to theists at every opportunity, it’s been a nice opportunity to express my dislike of the Stedmanites.

    That’s a funny definition of fact. And say what you want about Stedmanites, they’re worlds better than the commenters on your blog.

  183. John Morales says

    vladchituc, anyone who is led by you must be truly pitiful.

    You’re a sorry specimen, desperately covering your personal inadequacy with this claim of laesa maiestas.

    (Methinks you are the one who poorly reflects on the SSA, O whiner)

  184. Classical Cipher, Murmur Muris, OM says

    there’s not much point in disucssion of the original topic

    Also that’s not really what shemphair is doing. I don’t see any point in engaging with bricks of copypasta.

    If you’re inferring an attitude, it’s unwarranted.

    No, it’s not unwarranted. Your language in reference to the complaint you sent to JT’s boss suggests you believe yourself to be entitled to a certain type of behavior from him, based on his employment. You are not regarding him as someone who is entitled to treat you as an equal. Based on what you’ve said here, you regard him as someone who “serves” you and who therefore must at all times act with reference to this position. And by the way, you keep saying you emailed a friend, as though that makes it not the case that you emailed JT’s boss. The fact that you have a relationship with JT’s boss doesn’t actually make him not JT’s boss. You’re not fooling anyone with that shit.

  185. Active Margin says

    And say what you want about Stedmanites, they’re worlds better than the commenters on your blog.

    There it is. That just filled my bingo card. I needed either this or “Oh yeah? Well, my dad can beat up your dad!” to seal the win.

    Thanks for the assist!

  186. Brownian says

    I also don’t know why the specifics of mine and JT’s disagreement is in the least bit relevant.

    Because that’s how we determine whether or not JT was being a dick to a student leader. Fuck, you must be a legacy.

    I mean, given what a fucking douche you seem to be, there’s nothing dickish about telling you to fuck off, student leader or not.

    So maybe if you divulged the context, we’d see that JT was wrong in telling you to fuck off.

    But so far, telling you to fuck off seems natural and kind of just. Almost as if it were the duty of every thinking, feeling human being.

    Fuck off.

    God, I think a daffodil just birthed a puppy from my saying that.

  187. vladchituc says

    John,

    Ouch. I’ll do my best to sleep soundly tonight with such scathing criticism rolling around in my head.

    Class,
    Again, I didn’t email JT’s boss, I emailed a coworker of his. I didn’t email the board of directors or anything like that. If I feel “entitled” to anything, I feel entitled that the employees of the secular student alliance should respect the students they represent. I’m happy to disagree with JT, and I’m happy to have JT disagree with me. What I’m not happy with (and apparently what the SSA isn’t happy with) is to have JT be abusive and disrespectful to students.

    I’m happy to have him as my equal, and I don’t expect him to “serve” me at all (I think he works with highschool students, so that’d be weird anyway). I expect the SSA to serve the students that make up the SSA. Because that’s what the SSA does. I let them know an employee was going against their mission.

    I’m sorry if that seems entitled to you.

  188. vladchituc says

    Brown,

    If you think it’s so justified, feel free to contact the SSA yourself and see what they have to think about it.

    If they agree with you, be sure to let me know.

  189. Brownian says

    And say what you want about Stedmanites, they’re worlds better than the commenters on your blog.

    Definitely a legacy.

  190. Classical Cipher, Murmur Muris, OM says

    Pardon?

    He’s just misnaming me. Doesn’t matter to me too much.

    Just for clarification, I go by Cipher or CC, vlad. (“Classical” is an adjective, which actually means something pretty different from “class”.) Also, see post 152. It appears you did, in fact, email JT’s boss. And by the way, your last full paragraph is so absurdly self-contradictory it makes my brain hurt. Also… Fuck off.

  191. says

    And by the way, you keep saying you emailed a friend, as though that makes it not the case that you emailed JT’s boss. The fact that you have a relationship with JT’s boss doesn’t actually make him not JT’s boss. You’re not fooling anyone with that shit.

    Especially since he explicitly described his action as “saying ‘hey, one of your employees was a dick to a student today. That’s not cool. Maybe make sure he doesn’t do that'”!

    I mean, he just told his friend to get his servant in line. I don’t see any entitlement here.

  192. vladchituc says

    Cipher,

    RE 152, I didn’t email Jesse. (and thanks for bringing that post to my attention, I didn’t notice it). So the point is moot.

    And if my last paragraph is self-contradictory, do let me know how.

  193. says

    I also don’t know why the specifics of mine and JT’s disagreement is in the least bit relevant.

    So you’re going to continue to evade the question.

    I’ll ask again in one last desperate hope that you’ll actually come clean: what did you do to provoke JT?

    If you can’t say, I’ll just have to assume it’s something you were ashamed of.

  194. says

    He’s just misnaming me. Doesn’t matter to me too much.

    Oh – hee. Never mind.

    ***

    Brown,

    If you think it’s so justified, feel free to contact the SSA yourself and see what they have to think about it.

    If they agree with you, be sure to let me know.

    Hmmm…

    I have to wonder if Vlad is aware of exactly where he is.

  195. Brownian says

    If you think it’s so justified, feel free to contact the SSA yourself and see what they have to think about it.

    Why? They don’t represent me, and I don’t actually care what they think, you fucking authoritarian.

    I feel sorry for JT that he’s not absolutely free to tell a piece of shit like you to fuck off with impunity.

    Thank goodness I am, though.

    Feel free to make love to a moving bus.

    Let me know how it goes.

  196. vladchituc says

    Come on, are you still going to claim I’m evading anything? I’ve been nothing but forthright.

    What about this

    I’m fairly certain I was actually explicitly claiming JT had no evidence for the claims he was making. JT can correct me if I’m wrong.

    is ambiguous?

    I called him out for not citing his facts on a friends wall, he said “fuck you” for suggesting he was lying (or something like that). Again, JT can correct me if I’m wrong, and again, I don’t see how this is relevant in the least.

  197. vladchituc says

    PZ,

    I don’t think the issue here is that I’m evasive. I think you just aren’t properly reading what I’m saying.

    And now that I’ve answered your claims of evasion, I’d appreciate you do the same:

    Do you acknowledge you forwarded a rumor not based on fact at all? That you had no reason at all to think Chris was behind any of the emails the SSA received, and that you shouldn’t have made a serious accusation on your public blog based on hearsay?

  198. vladchituc says

    Except I didn’t accuse him of lying. I pointed out he hadn’t justified the claims his blog post was on.

    Then he accused me of lying.

    If I was surprised, it’s because he took it so personally. If I was surprised, it was because I was surprised an employee of the SSA would treat a group leader in the SSA so childishly.

  199. screechymonkey says

    Vlad: “Even if I was a “passive-aggressive whiner,” I wonder whether the SSA would approve of his conduct?”

    I don’t know, maybe you should go whine to them a second time, Mr. I’m A Leader.

    Such amazing leadership skills.

  200. vladchituc says

    Screech:

    I would, but it seems like enough people are already complaining about JT that I don’t have to.

  201. Active Margin says

    Except I didn’t accuse him of lying. I pointed out he hadn’t justified the claims his blog post was on.

    So…you basically told him he was full of shit, but with a smile. That’s way different.

    I would, but it seems like enough people are already complaining about JT that I don’t have to.

  202. screechymonkey says

    I’m so confused.

    Was Vlad trying to get the SSA to change J.T.’s behavior, or not?

    Was Vlad bringing an SSA employee’s allegedly poor behavior to the attention of the organization, or was he just emailing a friend who he didn’t think was in a position to do anything about it?

    Was J.T.’s behavior shocking because he shouldn’t treat an SSA college “leader” like that, or does J.T.’s position have nothing to do with it because he works with high school groups?

    Can J.T. really truly “correct [Vlad] if [he's] wrong” about his recounting of the story, or will Vlad go whining to the SSA again (as he’s just mused about) if he takes offense?

    I guess I need a leader to help me sort this out.

  203. vladchituc says

    Since when was saying “you didn’t cite anything” equivalent to calling someone a liar with a smile.

    Come on now.

  204. says

    Except I didn’t accuse him of lying. I pointed out he hadn’t justified the claims his blog post was on.

    You may have already mentioned which; I haven’t read the whole thread.

    What was the topic? What uncited claims did JT make?

  205. says

    Not a rumor. JT is being censored specifically on the topic of Chris Stedman. That’s the unfortunate fact squatting at the center of this argument. Now why would that happen unless people from your camp were applying pressure to the SSA? And since it was about Stedman, I had very good reason to consider him as the cause — the one thing I didn’t take into account was his toady squad. I now accept that Stedman did not have to lift a finger directly — as we’ve seen here, his acolytes do the goon work for him.

    I also don’t believe your account of the events that transpired between you and JT. Again, your comments here reveal that you are not a forthright person — you just can’t speak straight. I’m not at all surprised that JT would treat a slimy guy like you so abruptly.

    It is nice that you’ve accomplished something. You can mute JT, but all that’s going to do is piss off a larger group of people here. And yeah, I openly and forthrightly despise your organization of appeasers and compromisers and cowards very much, and I guess I’ll have to take up the slack after the suppression of JT.

  206. says

    You know, I’ve left maybe two or three comments on JT’s blog, and those were contrary. This thread has led me to have a new respect for him (even just for his having to put up with codpieces like Vlad).

  207. vladchituc says

    Was Vlad trying to get the SSA to change J.T.’s behavior, or not?

    Was Vlad bringing an SSA employee’s allegedly poor behavior to the attention of the organization, or was he just emailing a friend who he didn’t think was in a position to do anything about it?

    I sent a personal email to a friend in the SSA to let them know how JT treating students wasn’t acceptable. They apparently agreed. I didn’t touch the subject of his blogging, or who he blogs about, as JT and PZ imply or outright claim. If I tried to change his behavior, it was his behavior as an SSA employee towards students, not as a blogger.

    If I had emailed the board of directors saying “what JT blogs about is unacceptable and he’s mean to Chris Stedman,” I’d think JT, PZ, and all the commenters criticizing me for this would have a stronger leg to stand on.

    Can J.T. really truly “correct [Vlad] if [he's] wrong” about his recounting of the story, or will Vlad go whining to the SSA again (as he’s just mused about) if he takes offense?

    He’s absolutely welcome to. And considering the only time I “whined” to the SSA was 6 months ago, regarding an inappropriate personal attack, I think it’s pretty obvious I would have no reason to.

    But man, do freethinkers and skeptics sure love to be petty and make silly claims based on no evidence.

  208. vladchituc says

    PZ,

    1)I’d say it’s a rumor that Stedman is at all involved. And insofar as his “goons” are invovled, they’re involved in a personal dispute independent of Stedman. And maybe that happens is because I know a significant portion of the SSA’s student groups are fans of Stedman’s, and agree with Stedman. I’d imagine they’d feel personally attacked by some of JT’s posts on the topic.

    But again, this is no more than what you’ve been doing: Speculating. At least my speculations don’t involve libel.

    2) If you don’t believe me, feel free to ask JT. I can’t think of any reason, nor have you provided one, to think I’m evasive or lying about what happened. But lucky you, you know the third party involved who can confirm!

    3) Again, I made explicitly clear I didn’t want to censor JT. I’m not at all happy JT is censored, and I’d be more than happy to see him keep blogging about Chris. I’d just like to see him blog about what Chris actually says and believes, instead of constantly setting approximated effigies ablaze as if it’s somehow meaningful criticism.

  209. says

    So who are the other whiny rats at NPS? Since it was JT’s recent criticisms of Stedman that brought down the boot of censorship, who else at your organization is trying to control what blogs have to say about your hero?

    You’re so ready to complain about unprofessional behavior, I’m sure you’d be willing to expose the devious people in your own group.

  210. vladchituc says

    PZ,

    Neither Chris nor I know anything about it.

    Like I said, if I had to take a guess, I’d think the complaints came from student leaders who are sympathetic to Chris’ positions, who saw JT’s attacks on Chris as attacks on them. I’m in no more a position to say for sure than you are or JT are. But again, my speculation doesn’t involve accusing someone of trying to silence their opponents.

    And Chris is my friend, not me hero. We disagree a lot but we disagree respectfully. I’d be happy to see JT disagree with Chris respectfully, and I’m not happy to see him censored.

  211. says

    Again, I made explicitly clear I didn’t want to censor JT. I’m not at all happy JT is censored, and I’d be more than happy to see him keep blogging about Chris.

    Liar. This is precisely why I don’t trust a word you say.

    I’d just like to see him blog about what Chris actually says and believes, instead of constantly setting approximated effigies ablaze as if it’s somehow meaningful criticism.

    I’ve read some of Stedman’s writing — I find him smarmy and creepy, and dislike his pandering strategy intensely. That’s based on what Stedman says and apparently believes, and I suspect that JT was similarly responding to the Stedman propaganda mill.

  212. John Morales says

    vlad, get this: I (and I reckon others) ain’t defending JT; we’re responding to what you’re writing. I know neither of you, other than what you’ve written; that’s all I have upon which to base an opinion.

    Look at the evolution of your claims:

    @65: “So I’m a weaselly little rat, because I, as the president of my school’s SSA chapter, complain to the SSA when an employee of theirs says “fuck you” to me over a disagreement on facebook?”

    @249: “I sent a personal email to a friend in the SSA to let them know how JT treating students wasn’t acceptable.”

  213. says

    Some people say:

    Not a rumor. JT is being censored specifically on the topic of Chris Stedman. That’s the unfortunate fact squatting at the center of this argument. Now why would that happen unless people from your camp were applying pressure to the SSA? And since it was about Stedman, I had very good reason to consider him as the cause

    PZ, what you originally wrote was:

    their reflex response to any criticism is to go running to the lawyers or start harrassing people’s employers to silence those who dare to question their methods (I’ve been hearing similar things about Chris Stedman lately, which doesn’t surprise me).

    But now it sounds like you weren’t hearing similar things about Chris Stedman at all.

    By what you’re saying now, it appears you heard that JT was being censored on the topic of Stedman. So, when you say:

    I aired a rumor based on a fact: that complaints have been levied against JT by people trying to silence his criticisms of Chris Stedman.

    It appears you started the rumor that Stedman was behind it.

  214. vladchituc says

    PZ,

    I don’t know what’s so unbelievable about believing in an open marketplace of ideas. I disagree with JT but don’t want him censored. He acted inappropriately towards me and I only asked a coworker to make sure he treats students respectfully. I didn’t even mention his blogging. I don’t know why you’re so eager to see me as a slimy, weak-willed monster who can’t stand up to criticism, so I try to get it shut down from above. If that were the case I wouldn’t be commenting here, would I?

    I’ve read some of Stedman’s writing — I find him smarmy and creepy, and dislike his pandering strategy intensely. That’s based on what Stedman says and apparently believes, and I suspect that JT was similarly responding to the Stedman propaganda mill.

    That’s fair you think that. But even JT’s friends who agree with JT, like his blog, and even sometimes blog for JT, think he got his criticisms of Stedman all wrong.

    I’m a fan of criticism. I don’t get everything right. Neither does Chris. And if we’re wrong, I want people to point it out.

  215. says

    “Again, I made explicitly clear I didn’t want to censor JT. I’m not at all happy JT is censored,…”

    “[H]ey, one of your employees was a dick to a student today. That’s not cool. Maybe make sure he doesn’t do that….”

  216. Active Margin says

    He acted inappropriately towards me and I only asked a coworker to make sure he treats students respectfully.

    The story keeps changing. This is fucking spectacular.

  217. vladchituc says

    How has my story changed? I asked a coworker to make sure JT treats students respectfully. How does that amount to censorship? It definitely doesn’t amount to asking him to refrain from criticizing Stedman, which JT and PZ are claiming.

  218. A. Noyd says

    vladchituc (#111)

    [I'm a liar b]ecause I think saying “fuck you” is okay, but not to your students?

    (#147)

    [JT] was disrespectful and rude to a student he is meant to represent, so I made it clear it was unacceptable.

    (#153)

    I didn’t object to you cussing on facebook. I emailed a mutual friend saying “hey, JT’s being a prick to students, that’s not okay.”

    Hmm.

    (#215)

    How was I evasive? I was always upfront that JT’s rudeness was directed towards me, and that’s why I complained.

    Yeah, I don’t know why people might read evasiveness into how you keep talking about yourself in third person, and often in the plural.

  219. vladchituc says

    Since when was quoting a tweet enough to accurately address someone’s position?

    None of the claims JT makes about Chris’ position that follow accurately reflect them

    I don’t think quoting a tweet at the start of a post changes that.

  220. says

    I don’t know what’s so unbelievable about believing in an open marketplace of ideas. I disagree with JT but don’t want him censored. He acted inappropriately towards me and I only asked a coworker* to make sure he treats students respectfully.

    What about a personal email to a more powerful “superior” is part of an open marketplace of ideas? Explain.

    *Nice touch!

  221. vladchituc says

    Yeah, I referred to myself, and my status as a student in the SSA.

    When I used the plural, it was to make a broader point about when rudeness is fine. It’s okay to say fuck you, not to your students. How can that be interpreted to mean I’m referring to myself in the first person plural?

    Is really this the extent to my evasiveness? Really?

  222. vladchituc says

    SC,

    as far as I know, who I emailed isn’t a superior. And it was a private issue about how JT privately treats students. I didn’t see a reason to blog about it. Sorry.

  223. says

    SC,

    as far as I know, who I emailed isn’t a superior.

    Now square that with:

    [H]ey, one of your employees was a dick to a student today. That’s not cool. Maybe make sure he doesn’t do that….

  224. screechymonkey says

    How could this “friend” of yours who you thought was J.T.’s “coworker” “make sure” that J.T. does something?

  225. vladchituc says

    “Your” meaning the SSA. Like if you walk into a Game Stop, and one of the staff is being a dick to you. Would saying to the guy who works the front desk, “hey, one of your employees is being a dick?” imply that you think he’s the other guy’s boss?

    No, because the “your” refers to the organization.

    You guys are really grasping for straws, here.

  226. says

    Do you think the readers of this blog are that stupid, Vlad?

    If I said you’re a dick and I want you to stop posting, you’d of course decline.

    That’s the relationship expected between equals. That IS NOT the relationship you think you have with JT. You think he’s there to serve you. It’s evident from your comments on this thread.

    It’s wrong. It’s revolting. Move beyond it.

  227. Active Margin says

    Because friends can’t tell each other, “hey, stop being a dick?”

    But see, that’s not what you did.

    I sent a personal email to a friend in the SSA to let them know how JT treating students wasn’t acceptable.

    And it was a private issue about how JT privately treats students.

    He acted inappropriately towards me and I only asked a coworker* to make sure he treats students respectfully.

    You didn’t tell a friend to stop being a dick. You told someone else he was being a dick, and asked *them* to tell JT to “stop being a dick”. There is a difference, no matter how you want to spin it.

  228. says

    vladchituc #250:

    I know a significant portion of the SSA’s student groups are fans of Stedman’s, and agree with Stedman.

    And so you decided to stand up for them like any good rational person and…demand that JT’s criticism of Stedman be removed and JT censored, on grounds that have here been established as spurious.

    And you see nothing wrong with this course of action.

  229. vladchituc says

    Uh, the friend I emailed was one of JT’s coworkers in the SSA?

    Do you think the readers of this blog are that stupid, Vlad?

    If I do, do you think you’re helping to change my mind?

  230. John Morales says

    vladchituc:

    And it was a private issue about how JT privately treats students.

    Private? I do not think that word means what you think it means!

    Your supposed justification is that “I rightly complained that you acted unprofessionally to one of the students your organization represents.”, and that “Because as a student leader for my school’s SSA, JT acted inappropriately, unprofessionally, and immaturely to a student leader he is meant to represent.”.

    But then: “I sent a personal email to a friend in the SSA to let them know how JT treating students wasn’t acceptable.”

    Suddenly, it’s no longer an official complaint to the organisation, but a personal heads-up to a friend. Right.

    (Professional, personal — what’s the diff, right?
    Such distinctions are for non-leaders ;) )

  231. vladchituc says

    And so you decided to stand up for them like any good rational person and…demand that JT’s criticism of Stedman be removed and JT censored, on grounds that have here been established as spurious.

    And you see nothing wrong with this course of action.

    Did you even read anything at all that I said?

    SC: See?

  232. vladchituc says

    John,

    Suddenly, it’s no longer an official complaint to the organisation, but a personal heads-up to a friend. Right.

    I never said it was an official complaint. I emailed one of my friends, a coworker of JT’s, to let them know JT was behaving unprofessionally.

    Seriously. You guys are trying so hard to find an inconsistency that isn’t there.

  233. vladchituc says

    Setar,

    See comment 270.

    All of your inability to actually read what I’m saying is even more telling than imaginary flip-flopping.

  234. says

    vladchituc #277: Yes, I did. All I see is you blathering on about how it’s okay for you to try to get JT to shut up rather than refute him, with a hell of a lot of word flip-flops — most notably, your earlier statement where you referred to JT as an “employee” relative to whomever you contacted in order to silence him, contrasted with your recent reference to your contact as a mere “coworker”.

    Or how about your saying that JT is acting in some sort of teaching or instructive capacity, by referring to those he works with as “[his] students”. That’s another neat trick of words. Do you have any more?

  235. says

    “Your” meaning the SSA. Like if you walk into a Game Stop, and one of the staff is being a dick to you. Would saying to the guy who works the front desk, “hey, one of your employees is being a dick?” imply that you think he’s the other guy’s boss?

    No, because the “your” refers to the organization.

    Indeed. The person you wrote to was a representative of the organization who you obviously thought could go over JT’s head and would have power over him on behalf of the organization. Otherwise, you would have simply responded directly to JT. Every comment you’ve made on this thread attests to that.

    You are not seriously going to deny it.

  236. Active Margin says

    You guys are trying so hard to find an inconsistency that isn’t there.

    By that I assume you mean the times when we don’t quote you directly, of course.

  237. vladchituc says

    Setar,

    This is getting old fast.

    1) I didn’t try to silence JT. I let a coworker know he was treating a student disrespectfully on facebook. I didn’t mention his blog. I didn’t try to silence his blog. Any claims as much by JT or PZ are unsubstantiated and unreasonable.

    2)I referred to JT as an employee of a shared organization. See comment 270. Like you’d say to someone at the front desk “one of your employee is being a dick”

    3)JT is employed by the SSA. “His students” was meant to refer to the students in the SSA. Sorry for the shorthand.

    I don’t know why this is all so hard to follow, or why you all are trying so hard to find an imaginary inconsistency.

  238. says

    vladchituc #280: Invalid. I directly quoted you stating that members of the SSA that JT works with are somehow his students, claiming by implication that JT works in a teaching capacity. He doesn’t. The students are students in their own capacity; JT is not their instructor and thus they are not his students. Your wording is inaccurate. Correct it and move on.

  239. vladchituc says

    SC,

    No. The person I wrote to is a mutual friend I thought would politely let him know his behavior is inappropriate.

    But keep digging, I’m sure you’ll find something if you try harder.

  240. John Morales says

    vladchituc:

    I never said it was an official complaint.

    You claim we don’t read what you write; alas for you, the reverse is true.

    “Because as a student leader for my school’s SSA, JT acted inappropriately, unprofessionally, and immaturely to a student leader he is meant to represent.”

    See, when you write as “I rightly complained that you acted unprofessionally”, “as a student leader for my school’s SSA” and “to a student leader he is meant to represent”, that indicates you’re acting in your organisational capacity.

    Seriously, you really don’t see how, when you also write it was “a personal email to a friend”, you are indicating you are acting in your personal capacity, and when you write “to let them know” you are indicating this is informational, rather than an official complaint?

    (You can’t have it both ways!)

  241. vladchituc says

    I’ll correct it if you correct that I “demanded that JT’s criticism of Stedman be removed and JT censored.”

    Yeah, my bad for saying “his students” as shorthand for, “the students that make up the organization he works for.”

    How dishonest of me.

  242. vladchituc says

    the “to a student leader he is meant to represent” refers to who he acted inappropriately towards. Not who I complained to.

    If it were an official complaint, I would have emailed a boss, or the entire board of directors. I don’t see how sending an email to a mutual friend who works at the SSA to let that person know JT is acting inappropriately towards students can’t both be personal (meant in the sense that it’s not an issue that should be public) and also official (in that it’s an email about our status as members of an organization).

    Seriously. Grasping at straws.

  243. says

    vladchituc #286:

    I didn’t try to silence JT.

    Not a rumor. JT is being censored specifically on the topic of Chris Stedman.

    Yes, you did! Yes, you did, Vlad. It does not matter what you claim here; the fact is that JT has been specifically been censored on the topic of Chris Stedman.

    Censored. Told not to talk about Stedman. Not told not to tell students in the SSA “fuck off”, told not to talk about Stedman.

    You are lying. And you know how I know this?

    Because if you were telling the truth, as anyone with a brain can figure out, JT wouldn’t be banned from talking about Stedman entirely.

  244. vladchituc says

    And I now realize that I never actually referred to the complaint as official.

    Seriously, is this the best you guys have?

    If I were to make an official complaint, I would have emailed the Board of directors, or emailed one of his bosses.

  245. vladchituc says

    Setar,

    Again, did you get the part where my complaint was 6 months ago, and had nothing to do with the current situation at all?

    SC,

    Do you seriously expect me to think the commenters on this blog aren’t stupid?

  246. says

    No. The person I wrote to is a mutual friend I thought would politely let him know his behavior is inappropriate.

    Oh, yeah:

    [H]ey, one of your employees was a dick to a student today. That’s not cool. Maybe make sure he doesn’t do that….

    At this point, you can’t even maintain a semblance of an argument. “Let him know” (politely or otherwise) itself has clear connotations. You’re so soaked in privilege that you don’t recognize it before you post.

    You know, I saw the movie Shattered Glass recently.* Don’t know how exactly true to life it is, but it might make viewers potentially more attuned to habitual liars.

    Apropos of nothing, of course.

    *Surprisingly good film!

  247. vladchituc says

    Yeah, those connotations are “politely ask him to stop being a dick to students,” not “make sure he doesn’t blog about Chris Stedman”

  248. A. Noyd says

    vladchituc (#264)

    Yeah, I referred to myself, and my status as a student in the SSA. When I used the plural, it was to make a broader point about when rudeness is fine. It’s okay to say fuck you, not to your students.

    Whether or not you are yourself a student, this is one type of statement: “JT’s rudeness was directed towards me, and that’s why I complained.” (Emphasis added.)

    And this is a different type of statement: “JT’s rudeness was directed towards [students], and that’s why I complained.”

    How can that be interpreted to mean I’m referring to myself in the first person plural?

    I said third person plural. You make of yourself a multitude while claiming to have always been upfront that your complaint was about what was done to you. Whether or not you think it serves a broader point, the constant couching of the issue in terms of wrongs done to “students” is evasive. It’s evasive because it invokes an emotional distance that isn’t there. It’s also evasive in that you get to pretend your position is bolstered by those sharing your concern, but we can’t actually ask any of those “others” how they feel as they don’t exist outside your rhetoric.

    It would make you sound a whole lot more honest if you stopped at saying things such as: I don’t like being represented by a guy who says “fuck you” to me on Facebook.

    Is really this the extent to my evasiveness? Really?

    It’s one symptom of it, certainly.

    (#291)

    I’ll correct it if you correct that I “demanded that JT’s criticism of Stedman be removed and JT censored.”

    If you’re wrong, you’re wrong, and should own up to it. Making your own admission of wrongness contingent on someone else doing the same is immature.

  249. Active Margin says

    Vlad, when I submit papers for peer review and receive consistent negative feedback from multiple editors, the feedback is a result of two primary issues:

    1. I failed to properly communicate the content to my reader.

    and/or

    2. My claims were bullshit.

    You’re receiving consistent feedback from multiple people, and most appear to agree on #2. You can call it grasping at straws all you like. You’re not making it past peer review.

  250. says

    If you’re wrong, you’re wrong, and should own up to it. Making your own admission of wrongness contingent on someone else doing the same is immature.

    I agree with that sentiment, but I don’t believe vlad was wrong in his original wording of “his students”. It is not unreasonable to speak of the SSA’s students as such.

    I take vlad’s statement to mean “if you’ll correct your false claim, I’ll adjust my language to suit your preferences”.

    This is in accordance with his reasonable insistence that ‘JT is employed by the SSA. “His students” was meant to refer to the students in the SSA. Sorry for the shorthand.’

  251. says

    Setar:

    you decided to [...] demand that JT’s criticism of Stedman be removed

    Please cite this claim.

    JT wouldn’t be banned from talking about Stedman entirely.

    Please cite your claim that JT is banned from talking about Stedman.

  252. vladchituc says

    A. Noyd:

    1) JT’s rudeness is only relevant insofar as I’m a student.

    2) It was a joke. I’m only wrong insofar as I used shorthand that, in the context of what else I’d been saying, couldn’t be interpreted as JT being my teacher.

    Setar,
    JT more or less corroborated my story. Quit being so dogmatic, k?

    Active,

    The commenters on this blog aren’t my peers. They certainly don’t have a level of expertise that would make their objections weighty, so your analogy pretty much fails.

    I see a group of people that are intent on painting anyone that disagrees with their hereos as dishonest liars. They’re hardly objective judges that would read a journal article I submit.

  253. says

    Yeah, those connotations are “politely ask him to stop being a dick to students,”…

    No, they’re “Let him know…” Quite different, as anyone can see. But “Politely ask him to stop” to someone you saw as representative of the organization is a problem. “Politely” is your evasive nonsense. “Ask him to stop” doing whatever he’s doing that you don’t like captures your aim. If you didn’t think this person had power to get him to stop, you wouldn’t bother with them.

    And that presumes your characterization is correct, which is of course ridiculously snotty, privileged bullshit.

  254. vladchituc says

    That person had “power” to get him to stop, only insofar as they were friends.

    I would have emailed his boss or the board of directors if I wanted something more serious.

    Again. You guys are desperate to paint me as a dishonest, privileged liar. Based on what evidence? Some ambiguities I’ve more than cleared up?

    Is this really how a forum of skeptics and freethinkers behaves?

  255. John Morales says

    vladchituc:

    And I now realize that I never actually referred to the complaint as official.

    You are equivocating; informal ain’t unofficial.

    Look: the entire basis of your complaint* was that it was made to an SSA official regarding how you (an SSA participant**) was annoyed by perceived unprofessional conduct from someone employed by the SSA, and which you therefore thought reflected poorly on the SSA.

    * Your own term for it, cf. #57.

    ** A student leader, even! <snort>

    I see a group of people that are intent on painting anyone that disagrees with their hereos as dishonest liars. They’re hardly objective judges that would read a journal article I submit.

    Yeah, but I see a weaselly puffed-up pissant whinging about being personally insulted and trying to get back at the insulter, while claiming it was not he who was hurt and insulted (oh no!), but rather the organisation with which both parties are affiliated so as to justify his deplorable cowardice.

    (Don’t worry, I’m sure the lurkers all support ya! ;) )

    Is this really how a forum of skeptics and freethinkers behaves?

    You’re hurt we doubt your sincerity, and see through your feeble, pompous, self-serving excuses?

    (Welcome to Pharyngula!)

  256. says

    That person had “power” to get him to stop, only insofar as they were friends.

    LIE.

    “[H]ey, one of your employees was a dick to a student today. That’s not cool. Maybe make sure he doesn’t do that….”

  257. Active Margin says

    The commenters on this blog aren’t my peers. They certainly don’t have a level of expertise that would make their objections weighty

    Well then I’m puzzled as to what you’re doing here. And given the hour – and not being your peer and all – I’m puzzled as to what I’m doing here.

    Time to fix that.

  258. says

    I agree with that sentiment, but I don’t believe vlad was wrong in his original wording of “his students”. It is not unreasonable to speak of the SSA’s students as such.

    Referring to students in a possessive manner carries the implication that one is specifically in a teaching position, rather than just leading a group of students in some extracurricular activity (also, if I remember right, one does not necessarily need to be a student to participate in SSA meetings or events).

    That being said, it was moreso in light of his…-ahem-, liberal use of language in other cases, such as jumping between referring to JT as his contact’s “employee” and later “coworker” (as I explained earlier, coworkers are equal; one does not refer to one’s boss as a coworker). I take much greater issue with the fact that vlad kicked up such a fuss over what should have been a simple correction and tried to use it as some sort of leverage.

  259. vladchituc says

    You guys know that just because PZ uses insults from the 19th Century, it doesn’t mean you guys should too, right?

    I don’t know what you’re going on about with this unofficial business. I didn’t “file” a complaint. I didn’t email JT’s boss. I emailed a friend of his who doesn’t have any official power over him. It was a personal email to a friend to ask JT to treat students appropriately. Not officially. Not through the innerworkings of the SSA bureaucracy. But as friends.

    If I wanted otherwise, I would have emailed the board of directors.

    And yeah, I’m really hurt you guys don’t like me.

    I’ll have a hard time sleeping tonight.

  260. says

    Is this really how a forum of skeptics and freethinkers behaves?

    I never understand what anyone hopes to accomplish with comments like these.

    If you think someone is behaving badly and they don’t think they are, you aren’t going to shame them into behaving how you want by simply noting that you believe their behavior is not in accordance with their values.

    To have any chance of success, you’d have to quote their exact words and show them precisely what’s wrong with those words; you’re more likely to be successful if you also offer an alternative wording that you sincerely expect you can both agree on.

    Of course, if all you really want to do is register your disagreement, then have at it.

  261. A. Noyd says

    vladchituc (#303)

    JT’s rudeness is only relevant insofar as I’m a student.

    Which addresses exactly none of my point. But I suppose you would claim you’re not being evasive here, either.

    It was a joke. I’m only wrong insofar as I used shorthand that, in the context of what else I’d been saying, couldn’t be interpreted as JT being my teacher.

    Hahaha, you’re wrong about a whole lot more than that! Yes, Setar’s interpretation is off the mark. I’ll accept that your insincere sniping was intended as a joke. However, you need to be honest that you’re using “students” as longhand for “me” (as in, yourself).

  262. says

    “…legitimate complaint,…”

    “I, as the president of my school’s SSA chapter, complain to the SSA when an employee of theirs says “fuck you” to me over a disagreement on facebook?”

    “I said ‘One of your staff is acting inappropriately to student leaders over petty drama on facebook. Whether JT wants to admit it or not, he represents the SSA publicly.’

    Nothing more, nothing less.”

    “It was a fair complaint for me to make, and JT made it pretty clear he had no interest in talking to me.

    I don’t see why I should have checked with him first. Maybe he should have checked with the SSA before saying ‘fuck you’ to their student leaders.”

    “It was just inappropriate and reflected poorly on the SSA, so I brought its attention to the SSA.”

    “I don’t think it’s unreasonable to alert the SSA that one of their employees is being rude and disrespectful to one of their student leaders. If you ask the SSA, I’m sure that’s something they’d want to know about.”

    Took about a minute to amass these from this thread. Judge for yourselves.

  263. says

    Setar,

    Referring to students in a possessive manner carries the implication that one is specifically in a teaching position, rather than just leading a group of students in some extracurricular activity

    No, it does not.

    In fact, the SSA uses the possessive: “our students”. There is no implication that the SSA officers are teachers. There is the clear implication that these are students in the SSA’s organization.

    Vlad was right, and you were wrong.

  264. John Morales says

    vladchituc:

    I can read, and compare.

    @65:

    So I’m a weaselly little rat, because I, as the
    president of my school’s SSA chapter, complain to the SSA when an employee of theirs says “fuck you” to me over a disagreement on facebook?

    @310:

    I didn’t “file” a complaint. I didn’t email JT’s boss. I emailed a friend of his who doesn’t have any official power over him. It was a personal email to a friend to ask JT to treat students appropriately.

    I, as the president of my school’s SSA chapter

    It was a personal email to a friend

    I [...] complain to the SSA

    I emailed a friend of his

    (etc.)

  265. Active Margin says

    About that chiropractic thing ?

    Yeah, I can’t believe Golaszewski was let off so easy. But be careful trying to derail an already derailed thread! It’s like toying with Pandora’s box.

  266. says

    PZ’s comment #247, which leads into the first one — if JT is censored on the topic of Stedman, a lot more was likely said than simply “he told me to fuck off, please tell him not to do that”.

    I took PZ’s comment to mean that “JT is being censored [by being told to treat people more civilly] specifically on the topic of Chris Stedman”; that is, no more fuck yous.

    I agree that’s censorship, but if my reading is right, it’s not the same as being banned from talking about Stedman.

    Now I can see the ambiguity that leads to our different readings, but I don’t think it’s obvious that yours is correct. I hope PZ will clear this up when he wakes up.

    +++++
    Anyway, if you’re right that JT is banned from talking about Stedman, it does not mean that vlad or anyone else who complained asked for JT to be censored.

    Organizations very often practice a CYA policy, bringing down a heavy hand on employees for minor issues.

    I would not at all be surprised to hear that “tell JT not to say ‘fuck you'” led to “don’t talk about Stedman at all, JT”, just because of CYA by someone else in the SSA.

    That’s assuming you grokked PZ. I don’t think you did.

  267. says

    sgbm #316: Okay, fine. So why are you so focused on that point alone,

    Why are you whining that I corrected you, Setar?

    and not the point drawn from vlad’s disproportionate reaction?

    I’m not sure what this means. Are you asking why I’m spending my time criticizing you rather than vlad? If that’s the question, the answer is because vlad is already well-covered by the rest of the horde.

  268. says

    Why are you whining that I corrected you, Setar?

    Why are you attempting to paint me as some immature child, sg?

    I’m not sure what this means. Are you asking why I’m spending my time criticizing you rather than vlad?

    No. I am asking you why you’re focusing entirely on where I might be wrong, and furthermore singling me out with regards to this wrongness.

  269. says

    SC at #248,

    You know, I’ve left maybe two or three comments on JT’s blog, and those were contrary. This thread has led me to have a new respect for him (even just for his having to put up with codpieces like Vlad).

    Thanks.

    I really would like the context revealed. Rest assured, the personal attacks (as one could imagine from Vlad’s behavior here) along with the accusations of dishonesty came first.

    In retrospect, I should have gone with “Well, you’re insulting me, I have no respect whatsoever for you, and I’m done giving you the benefit of the doubt.” That would have been much more cordial than “Fuck off”.

    JT

  270. says

    Well, I was just reading along, going “Hmm, has this guy been misrepresented? What’s all this about really?”, and trying to sort out what vlad’s actual claim was. Maybe some people here were being overly touchy. It’s been known. But it was pretty tricky, the claim did seem to be shifting all over the place.

    And then…

    The commenters on this blog aren’t my peers.

    ORLY? WTF? Who died and made you queen of the universe? Fuck you, too, you whiny little jumped-up self-important pissant student.

    I see everyone else was just faster off the mark than I was.

  271. Matt Penfold says

    In retrospect, I should have gone with “Well, you’re insulting me, I have no respect whatsoever for you, and I’m done giving you the benefit of the doubt.” That would have been much more cordial than “Fuck off”.

  272. Matt Penfold says

    In retrospect, I should have gone with “Well, you’re insulting me, I have no respect whatsoever for you, and I’m done giving you the benefit of the doubt.” That would have been much more cordial than “Fuck off”.

    “Fuck Off” has the not unimportant virtue of brevity.

  273. says

    So you’re specifically criticizing Setar, sorry, Setar’s reasoning because?

    Because Setar spent multiple posts on that faulty reasoning. 276, 281, 287, 309.

    Setar thought it was that important.

    +++++

    Why are you attempting to paint me as some immature child, sg?

    I’m not. I was calling Kel a whinybutt the other day, and Kel is surely a mature adult, as well as a whinybutt.

    Adults whine. You are whining. And for the record, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being an immature child. I try to avoid ageist insults, and I expect you’ll have a hard time finding me using one.

    No. I am asking you why you’re focusing entirely on where I might be wrong,

    What do you want me to do, congratulate you on some instance of where you might be right? Jeez that’s whiny of you.

    and furthermore singling me out with regards to this wrongness.

    That’s simply not true. A. Noyd was wrong about the exact same thing, and I addressed A. Noyd as well. Beyond that, I’ve critiqued vlad at 311 and the tentacled one at 192 and 255.

    If you weren’t such a self-centered whinybutt, you’d have noticed that.

  274. says

    To clear the air.

    The reaction of the SSA in the first instance, when Vlad complained, was to write me up. The write up contained a list of complaints that were levied, but that I won’t discuss here as they are within the organization. They do extend beyond me telling Vlad to “fuck off”.

    The second time the initial reaction was to ask me to not write about Chris and to put the disclaimer atop my blog (which is how this came to light). Later in the day, it was determined that prohibiting me from writing about a particular person was a bad idea. I may still write about Chris, but such posts must be vetted by Jesse, our communications director.

    I love the SSA. We are a phenomenal organization, and I don’t begrudge my superiors protecting their brand. I am aware I generate controversy (at least, apparently, when blogging about Chris). The idea of having my voice curtailed does tweak me a bit, and my superiors are aware of this. Still, it’s a sacrifice I’m more than willing to make to work for this group.

    Since I assume I’m still allowed to disagree with student leaders publicly (Vlad has said he welcomes criticism, then again, he also said he didn’t mind when people told him to fuck off, so my employers may still receive complaints), let’s get some other things straight.

    Vlad did contact a superior of mine. The argument that it was personal and not professional has already been shredded here, and accurately. The defense that Vlad wrote a *personal* email to my *professional* bosses is a very disingenuous one, and obviously so. Was this his right? Sure. Was it in an attempt to silence me or to get me in trouble over a perceived slight? Of course it was, why else do it? Do I represent the SSA? Yes, which is why Vlad knew it would work and why I was disciplined for it (which is how I’m aware of the full nature of his complaint).

    As I said, the SSA has only twice (to my knowledge) received complaints with relation to my blogging, and it was both times I blogged about Chris (the “fuck off” to Vlad was in discussing the first post). At the very least you can say that most people feel comfortable lobbing their complaints at me, the guy who wrote the material. As SC said at #248, he has left contrary comments on my blog before and I didn’t tell him to fuck off. Lots of people leave disagreeing comments on my blog. How many get told to fuck off? Do the math.

    The issue of attempted censorship and Vlad’s…inconsistency…has also been tackled with direct quotes from Vlad. On the one hand he says he never asked they censor me, on the other he says he asked my boss to tell me to knock it off. In complaining to the SSA, screechmonkey hit the nail on the head at #119.

    But you didn’t think the SSA should do anything about it? That must have been quite an interesting email.

    “Hi, SSA. I think your employee J.T. is failing to live up to the standards of your organization, and that reflects badly on you as an organization. But don’t do anything about it, ok? I’m only telling you so you can know about it. But you certainly shouldn’t take any action. You should continue to let this employee reflect badly on the organization. The important thing is that you know he’s embarrassing you; you shouldn’t actually do anything about it. Love, Vlad.”

    The “I never directly asked for this” is Vlad playing dumb as if he couldn’t gather what the subsequent consequence of his actions would be. Was it his right? Sure. But let’s not pretend for even a second that he’s being forthright. He isn’t.

    Which leads to more surprising behavior. When PZ implicated Chris in going to my bosses in response to criticism, there was outrage. Now that it’s revealed someone else did it (someone to whom Chris gives a platform at NPS), where is the outrage? Now there’s only pride and justifications (and elevating his voice in a blog post). There’s even Vlad swearing up and down that he didn’t want me censored (even though his subsequent comments and actions scream otherwise). Ok, so it wasn’t Chris, it was one of his bloggers.

    Was it Vlad’s right? Yes. But that’s not the issue here.

    And sadly, he’s going to get what he wanted in a roundabout way. I’m still allowed to write about Chris, but those posts must be vetted. This is an understandable position for the SSA to take. However, I already have about zero free time (and my superiors at the SSA have less than me) and I’m personally unwilling to take the extra time making revisions and going through that process (and, frankly, unwilling to put my superiors through that).

    So…’grats to Vlad. He and Chris have come out the winners here with regards to my writing. Whether Vlad has managed it honestly…well, I defer to the on-lookers.

    JT

  275. says

    The second time the initial reaction was to ask me to not write about Chris and to put the disclaimer atop my blog (which is how this came to light). Later in the day, it was determined that prohibiting me from writing about a particular person was a bad idea. I may still write about Chris, but such posts must be vetted by Jesse, our communications director.

    Thanks for clearing this up, JT.

    As SC said at #248, he has left contrary comments on my blog before

    she.

  276. vladchituc says

    One more response than I’m out, because it seems only appropriate.

    1) I contacted a friend of mine. If there was a formal leadership position over JT, I didn’t know about it, and looking just at their job titles you wouldn’t know either. I didn’t ask for a formal censure. I didn’t ask for censorship. I simply asked that a friend of mine talk to JT as a friend to change how he presents himself online. There is a difference between asking that JT conduct himself respectfully, and JT avoid talking about certain people. One is a request about tact, another a request about censorship. My email and complaint fell squarely in the former category. And if it isn’t already clear, I’m happy to have people tell me to fuck off. PZ’s minions having been doing it all night and that’s cool. I’m not okay with an employ of a group I’m a student leader of saying it to me. Let’s not pretend this is an inconsistency, here.

    2) I didn’t go to JT’s boss to silence JT about Chris. That’s blatantly false. If someone went to JT’s boss after his most recent post, I don’t know anything about it. I haven’t said a thing about it, and I disagree that they asked JT’s bosses to censor him. No matter how you square it, PZ’s original claim was entirely false and unsubstantiated.

    For those claiming I’ve been “inconsistent” about asking for censorship, I’m honestly at a loss if they can’t get the difference between asking that JT conduct himself decently and that JT not discuss something.

    And lastly, I object to the fact that Chris and I “won,” because neither Chris nor I want JT censored. If you asked Chris, I’m sure he’d say as much, too.

    And with that I’m out. I’ve said my piece and spent much longer on here than I should have.

  277. says

    Any reactions to the rest?

    What I said earlier: “I agree that’s censorship” either way, and “Organizations very often practice a CYA policy, bringing down a heavy hand on employees for minor issues”, which, as you note, Vlad could well have predicted.

  278. says

    It should also be noted re:

    And lastly, I object to the fact that Chris and I “won,” because neither Chris nor I want JT censored.

    A friend of mine, Conrad Hudson, did a fb post disagreeing with my post about Chris (amazingly, I didn’t tell Conrad to fuck off…). I promised Conrad a response, but after the events of the day left a comment saying I would be unable to provide the response I promised.

    Vlad “liked” it.

    I’m inclined to believe Chris doesn’t want censorship (though it confuses me why he’d give a voice to the person pursuing what he doesn’t want…perhaps Chris *really* doesn’t like censorship). But personally I don’t buy it from Vlad.

    JT

  279. vladchituc says

    In all fairness, that was impulsive and hilarious after a night of petty dickery. It felt only appropriate and I’ll be totally forthright that it was a total dick move.

    Jokes on facebook are one thing. Commitments to free speech are entirely another, and I don’t think it’s appropriate to silent dissent. I didn’t ask for it, and no one I know did.

    Again, I’d love to see you actually address positions Chris really holds. I’m all for that. I’m not at all for posts passing off as criticism that address little more than caricature.

  280. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Aquaria: You have illustrated precisely what’s so very wrong about the way discussion is conducted on this blog.

    No, you are illustrating precisely whats so very wrong with the way you are attempting to manipulate the discussion loser. Fuck off liar, bullshitter, and tone troll.

    Just like Vlad too. We are used to liars and bullshitters, and can recognize them a mile away, and laugh at their inane attempts to try to show they aren’t liars and bullshitters. If they could only shut the fuck up, they would appear about 100 times smarter.

  281. erikfinlow-bates says

    Leader…president…employee…serve…
    *dons Franco outfit and cracks one off*
    Sotty cam’t see keybosrd fir alk thw cum
    *wipes clean*

    Where do they breed these authoritarian arseholes like Vlad?

  282. says

    There is a something terribly revealing in Vlad’s comment…

    Jokes on facebook are one thing. Commitments to free speech are entirely another…

    This seems to be the anthem of those in Vlad’s camp (and the blogs that imply agreement with his voice by posting his material, such as NPS). “Free speech is great…in the ways *I* deem appropriate.”

    “Say what you want! But don’t be surprised when I complain to those with the power to silence you when I don’t like it.”

    Of course, the response will be “But I never *directly asked* for censorship…I just told his bosses he was mean”. See #329 and, well, the rest of the thread to understand why playing dumb doesn’t really cut it for us here.

    JT

  283. says

    Vlad, fuck off. For real. You like censorship, you’re a slimy little rat, and you can’t even own up to the consequences of your actions, so I don’t feel at all uncomfortable in telling you not to post here ever again. And since “The commenters on this blog aren’t [your] peers”, I shouldn’t think you’d feel any remorse at all at being scraped off our shoes like the shit you are.

    You’ve done an excellent job representing the NPS. Jeez, but I despise you guys.

  284. Louis says

    I awoke this morning, committed the usual ablutions and testicular oscillations, broke my fast, kissed my wife, took my child to nursery and commuted to work. I’ve set up a couple of reactions, worked up a couple of overnighters from yesterday, finished up writing what I am going to say to the people I have to give job reviews for today and now settled down to lunch at my desk. Salad and Pharyngula, a heady combination. I am left with one thought:

    Veni. Legi. Risi.

    I came. I read. I laughed.

    Seriously, some guy on Facebook tells another guy on Facebook to fuck himself so the second guy goes to a mutual friend of the pair, who {shock horror} happens to be one of the first guy’s bosses, in order to get the friend to tell the first guy to knock off telling the second guy to fuck himself because apparently telling someone to fuck themselves on Facebook constitutes such a wanton breach of conduct and ethics that the organisation who all three dudes work with/for will be forever besmirched in some fantastic fashion. Oh, and this is like, ya know, totes not an attempt at censorship, bro (did I do the American correctly there?).

    Ok, I know, but the big run-on sentence was deliberate!

    Even more exciting, as if this were even possible, the fucker-you-er was apparently being chided, wrongly it seems, by the fuckee-you-ee for daring to criticise some believer boffer big wig. Can we say cult of personality, children? In the words of Chandler Bing, could this BE any more pathetic?

    This is what is energising us this morning? THIS? There is a perfect opportunity to tear a strip off some spine wizards and we’re wasting time AGAIN on the footling faitheists, fibbers, and fantabulous fuckwits that think boffing believers and back-handedly babbling biblical banalities will somehow magically morph myth-mashers into shiny shirkers of superstition?

    Fuck me deftly with a ten foot rubber implement it must be a slow news day! ;-)

    Isn’t it obvious yet that the majority, but by no means all, of these sonorous, self appointed schoolmarms of secular strategies are just in it for the celebrity and sanctimony? I am so unutterably BORED by the whole confection. How is “do what works in each individual situation” hard to grasp for these people? Harsh works sometimes, cuddling works sometimes, news and rocket surgery this isn’t.

    BAHHHH! I demand recompense, this has curdled the dressing on my salad. OH THE HUMANITY! A plague on everyone’s houses. Hurrah and confusion!

    This internet drama is catching and has now occupied a finite segment of my thoughts. Well I hope you feel happy with yourselves because diseases are just going to get cured fractionally slower now because of you. That’s right, accomodationists and faitheists (I hate both terms by the way, but shorthand is as shorthand does), you have measurably set back both my Nobel Prize (a shoo-in surely?) and the requisite scientific progress needed to cure serious diseases. I hope you’re proud of that. Yeah, betcha didn’t think of that when you were wagging fingers at others for using the work “fuck” and being all mean and stuff.* Tut tut.

    Louis

    *It is obvious I am taking the piss here right? Well, I’m taking the piss about the extent of my contributions! And of course the extent of any disruption of them. The principle still stands however. No one ever considers the damage that content free tutting does.

  285. jflcroft says

    (I’ve been hearing similar things about Chris Stedman’s lackeys lately, which doesn’t surprise me).

    I would like to acknowledge that PZ has edited his original accusation so that it doesn’t wrongly impugn Chris Stedman. I appreciate this. Noting the edit in the post itself would be more honest and responsible, but I respect the implicit admission of error nonetheless.

  286. Beatrice, anormalement indécente says

    Finally, I’ve read everythig.

    Jokes on facebook are one thing.

    Except when someone tells you to fuck off, then it’s serious business

  287. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I appreciate this.

    Who the fuck cares what a liar, bullshitter, and tone troller like yourself thinks? We certainly don’t. If you never posted here again it would be too soon. Begone!

  288. Predator Handshake says

    A bit off-topic maybe, but I wanted to say that in my limited experience with JT I’ve found him to be a very patient guy. This thread is further evidence but what I’m referring to is when he came to ETSU to talk and the Q&A at the end devolved into a circular discussion regarding tigers and dolphins murdering each other (it was a few months ago so I might be wrong about the specifics). What struck me as impressive is that his head didn’t explode the whole time. Great job!

  289. Brownian says

    Louis, I think it’s “fuck you-er” and “fuck you-ee”.

    Noting the edit in the post itself would be more honest and responsible, but I respect the implicit admission of error nonetheless.

    I don’t know what shitty parent, teacher, or leader gave you the impression that you’ve got an opinion worth listening to, but they should be charged with child abuse for setting you loose upon the planet with this misapprehension.

    I don’t know how to get this through your heads, probably because they’re so deeply embedded in your asses, but neither you, nor Chris Stedman, nor Vlad, nor any of the gang of faitheist pukes, has anything like approaching the credibility required to be an authority on what’s honest, responsible, or decent.

  290. jflcroft says

    Brownian: Lacking any real contribution to make to the discussion, you now descend to insulting my parents. You basic attitude is “someone disagrees with my hero, so there must be something wrong with his mum!” Classy. The fact remains, PZ did something wrong, he was called-out, he implicitly accepted his error by changing his post, but instead of being clear and honest and up-front about it he made a modification without acknowledging the original error. If Stedman did that, we all know the sort of language you’d use to criticize.

  291. truthspeaker says

    vladchituc says:
    14 December 2011 at 8:19 pm

    So I’m a weaselly little rat, because I, as the president of my school’s SSA chapter, complain to the SSA when an employee of theirs says “fuck you” to me over a disagreement on facebook?

    Yes.

    Also, fuck you.

  292. Louis says

    Brownian #350,

    Louis, I think it’s “fuck you-er” and “fuck you-ee”

    You are correcting me? YOU are correcting ME? You are CORRECTING me? ME?! MEEE!?

    I cast doubt upon the suitability of your talents as they map to your chosen mode of employment. I declare that you have a variety of unsavoury habits, some of which relate to profoundly psychologically stimulating matters like sex and interpersonal relations. I question your political leanings and fear that you may be remarkably like Hitler. Or Stalin. Or both. Whichever is more insulting.

    Good day, sir. I said good day!

    Louis

    P.S. I used to be able to accept correction, but then I took an arrow to the knee.

    I clearly think this is a very serious subject.

  293. Brownian says

    Lacking any real contribution to make to the discussion, you now descend to insulting my parents.

    Did you read the rest of it, dumbass? (And not just the part wherein I suggested there may be teachers or vaunted leaders at fault too? I’m sure your folks weren’t the only ones asleep at the wheel.)

    Right after I’d hit ‘submit’, I’d considered reiterating my point in a follow-up comment, but I thought that would be insulting to you. But I see I’ve no choice but to repeat myself, and let’s see if you’re smart enough to ignore the petty jibes and follow the important points this time.

    You do not have anything like approaching the credibility or respect required to be an authority on what’s honest, responsible, or decent.

    Because the person I’m talking about here is you. So far on this thread, you’ve done little but wring your hands over the standards of decency you’ve decided are universal and agreed upon. You’ve shown that you’re all but incapable of hearing the point that we all don’t agree that the things you consider standards of decency should be standards of decency.

    If you truly want to build bridges, you’re going to have to start listening to other people. People with different values, customs, mores, and standards than you. What you don’t do is continue to pigheadedly insist that your values, customs, mores, and standards are the ones everyone needs to live up to.

    As for ‘hero’, it’s true that I’ve aligned myself with the group I most identify with, and humans being humans, we all get tribal. I also have play a role in this community that few others can play. You don’t need to consider that important. You don’t need to see the value in what I do.

    You just need to acknowledge that I’m here, and I’m more or less out of fucks to give about what someone like you, or Vlad, or Chris Stedman, or pretty much anyone else thinks.

    But PZ’s not my hero. I don’t have that sick, creepy leader obsession you described in comment 123. It’s not universal. Maybe you don’t believe that, but frankly, I don’t much care; you don’t seem to be all that bright when it comes to the things that people who aren’t you care about or think. I’ve called him out on more than a few occasions, and I’ve flounced from this blog pretty hard more than once. What I didn’t do is whinge and cry and try to shame him by telling him how disappointed I am that he’s failed me as a leader.

    That’s not me; that’s you.

    Classy.

    That’s perhaps the biggest difference between someone like you and someone like me; you seem to be all about class and status and appearance and decency. I’m sure that a sarcastic ‘classy’ would be insulting or something to someone like you. But the only thing it does to me is make me wonder why someone would waste the six characters.

  294. Brownian says

    I cast doubt upon the suitability of your talents as they map to your chosen mode of employment.

    I don’t think you actually know what I do, but boy, did you hit the nail on the head with that one. Lucky guess.

    I declare that you have a variety of unsavoury habits, some of which relate to profoundly psychologically stimulating matters like sex and interpersonal relations.

    It’s like you’ve got the password to the live feed from the webcam in my bedroom. Have I been hacked?

    I question your political leanings and fear that you may be remarkably like Hitler. Or Stalin. Or both. Whichever is more insulting.

    Oddly enough, I secretly consider myself a Statlerian; the only reason I didn’t grow a ‘stache for Movember was that I worried it would have given me away.

    GET OUT OF MY HEAD!

    (Also, I don’t give a fig for classy.)

  295. Louis says

    Actually, vaguely serious point, if PZ DID edit the original post, and I have no reason to suspect he didn’t, I’m happy to take this Croft chappie at his word for now, then yes, an edit mark would be appropriate. A footnote acknowledging the edit correcting an original error is not a bad thing, in fact it would be a good thing. I think we should all be held to such standards.

    But still, none of that speaks to:

    a) the wibbly shittiness of faitheist/accomodationist (I hate those terms…may have mentioned that) “arguments”.

    b) the odiousness of tattling to someone’s boss…sorry, mutual friend who coincidentally happens to be a director of the place of employment of the tattlee…in order to get them censored…sorry, have nothing happen whatsoever…sorry again, have them told it’s not cool to tell someone to fuck themselves on Facebook.

    c) the relevance of yet more internet {jazz hands} DRAHHHHMAHHHH to the original topic of spine wizardry and lying quacks with itchy lawyer fingers.

    d) the abject knobbery of me even bothering to comment on this utter heap of horseshit, hence why I taking the piss rather a lot. Not least out of myself.

    Louis

  296. Brownian says

    A footnote acknowledging the edit correcting an original error is not a bad thing, in fact it would be a good thing. I think we should all be held to such standards.

    It would not be bad in the least, and it would give some context for why everyone’s so up in arms.

  297. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Errr, what have I lied about?

    Standards of internet behavior, especially with respect to Pharyngula, tone troll. If you lie about that, what else will you lie about? Long past time for you to fade back into the bandwidth.

  298. Louis says

    Brownian,

    I have been tempted to do Movember for a while now, I think in 11/2012 we should do a Pharyngula Movember with photos. Including the ladies of course.

    Especially including the ladies. Nothing more attractive than a lady with a luxuriant and flowing beard….and a massive cock…and a Y chromosome…and no history of ever having actually been a lady….kind of like a bloke actually…

    …OMGAWD Being an atheist has made me catch Teh Ghey! And 100% of it too!

    I’m off to Ted Haggard to get the cure. I’ll make sure to get my luggage lifted and check the width of my stance on the journey. Because we all know that having Teh Ghey makes Teh Baybee Jeezis cry and therefore we must be nice to Christians. Or something. Oh I’m so confused.

    Louis

  299. Louis says

    Brownian,

    It would not be bad in the least, and it would give some context for why everyone’s so up in arms.

    Oh now look, if we’re going to agree about things then something like sanity might break out, and we couldn’t have that.

    After all if we all engage with each other with a modicum of intellectual honesty and a smidgen of charity then there will be no reason to call each other communistic, paedophilic, sexist, shit gobblers. And no one wants that now do they?

    Louis

  300. Louis says

    We’re not allowed to mock spine wizards when there are tone trolls and believer boffers about. It’s all to do with the Pharynguloid Hierarchy of Gits*. Tone trolls are more urgent.

    Apparently.

    Louis

    *Oh sorry, I’m proud of this. I reckon we could rip of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, create a Hierarchy of Gits that illustrates which species of Git needs dealing with most urgently.

  301. Brownian says

    After all if we all engage with each other with a modicum of intellectual honesty and a smidgen of charity then there will be no reason to call each other communistic, paedophilic, sexist, shit gobblers.

    There is very little I do that has, underlying it, a thing that someone else who is not a skilled psychologist would call a ‘reason’.

    So, I don’t see how having ‘no reason’ would stop me. I understand others may operate by a different set of algorithms, though.

    Won’t someone think of the chiropractors?
    or has that ship sailed?

    Yeah. Shemphair1 gave it a valiant effort, but ultimately this thread was too misaligned, even for her or him.

  302. Louis says

    So we can call people communistic, paedophilic, sexist, shit gobblers with abandon? But this is terrible! Dogs and cats living together, human sacrifice, mass hysteria.

    I don’t know what the pearl clutchers will say.

    Louis

  303. Brownian says

    We’re not allowed to mock spine wizards when there are tone trolls and believer boffers about. It’s all to do with the Pharynguloid Hierarchy of Gits*. Tone trolls are more urgent.

    Apparently.

    Louis

    *Oh sorry, I’m proud of this. I reckon we could rip of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, create a Hierarchy of Gits that illustrates which species of Git needs dealing with most urgently.

    It’s not a matter of what’s allowed, it’s a matter of what meat is tastier.

    I find chiropracters somewhat tough. I’ll nosh, if I’ve got the time to pull out the slow cooker.

    But young, tender faitheist? The way they squeal and wriggle when you bite into them is just too tempting to pass up. Just look at this: “but ad hominem suits you surprisingly well.” Have you ever tasted anything so sweet?

  304. Brownian says

    I don’t know what the pearl clutchers will say.

    Yes, you do.

    It’s not like they ever say anything new or insightful.

  305. says

    The only reason I didn’t bother to denote the change is that it was already so thoroughly hashed out in the 300+ comments. I should have realized that the Stedman sycophants would settle for nothing less than complete absolution for their hero.

    Oh, and jflcroft…how about if you fuck along with your little pal Vlad, too.

  306. Brownian says

    Oh, and jflcroft…how about if you fuck along with your little pal Vlad, too.

    Great. Now how are we to know what the standards of behaviour that white Ivy Leaguers hold dear are that we should all adopt to give peace a chance?

    I guess we’ll just have to say our Fuck Yous until the SSA tugs our ears.

  307. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    PZ, you’re a university professor!

    The room suddenly smells fresher; less like hoggling.

  308. chigau (違う) says

    Louis
    (are you a loo-iss or a loo-wee?)
    You can call anyone anything as long as you add a :)
    That way they mayn’t be offended.

  309. Sastra says

    jflcroft #372 wrote:

    So much for free exchange of ideas.

    I don’t know, I think that’s pretty freely expressed.

    And I think you’ve been expressing yourself pretty freely, as well. There’s been a lot of exchanging. The thread is very long and so bent out of shape that now we’ll all have to go to chiropractors.

    And then the thread will have a fresh start.

  310. Brother Ogvorbis, OM . . . Really? says

    So much for free exchange of ideas.

    Long on free, long on exchange. Rather short on ideas, what?

  311. Brownian says

    So much for free exchange of ideas.

    Was that what you thought was happening?

    I saw lots of evidence of you castigating everyone for their behaviour, and not much of you reading what others had to say.

  312. Louis says

    Brownian,

    The problem with young, tender faitheists (term…hate…said it before) is that they all taste very bland and very similar as you note. Sure they make a lot of noise, and it all gets nasty, but I feel so unrewarded at the end of it. I need a new form of denialism and douchebaggery. I think I’ll try Politics.

    ____________

    PZ,

    Well since I didn’t know who this Stedman person was until today, I think that counts me out. I googled his name and this NPS thing you mentioned, I am…let’s be nice and go with “unimpressed”. The arguments I read weren’t exactly what I call persuasive or coherent. But I’ve come to expect that from the accomodationist (yuck) crowd.

    Either way, yes you’re right that the tale of the thread indicates why an edit was made (and now definitively THAT it was made), but that doesn’t change the fact that marking an edit is just general good practise. I know I am not telling you anything new. It just gives the morons less to leap on. And when you’re dealing with people like this, I reckon you have more than enough experience to know that giving them anything that appears to be genuine, whether it is or not, is a bad plan.

    Louis

  313. Brownian says

    Remember what I wrote, Louis?

    I don’t know what the pearl clutchers will say.

    Yes, you do.

    It’s not like they ever say anything new or insightful.

    How’s “So much for free exchange of ideas” fit in?

  314. Louis says

    Chigau (違う),

    I’m a Loo-wee.

    I’ll bear that in mind. It was very kind of you to tell me. In fact you’re an extremely lovely person. :)

    Did I do that right? ;-)

    Louis

  315. shouldbeworking says

    Brownian @ 366: I realize some of you prefer your faithists young, tender and medium rare, some of us like them roasted over a slow fire, basted in the juices of kittens. Rats, another hour until lunch.

  316. Brother Ogvorbis, OM . . . Really? says

    By the by, just to add confusion, Fort Stedman was a defense strongpoint during the Battle of Petersburg, an NPS site. I was getting a mite confuzzled (which is (to be fair (and I am always fair)) not all that unusual).

    ==========

    When I was down in NYC at the WTC incident, I began having some really bad back pain (most likely from standing on concrete for sixteen hours a day). A chiropractor (volunteering time at the incident for responders) was able to aleviate some of the discomfort through neck, spine, shoulder and hip cracking. It helped.

    One day I went up there and there was a different chiropractor. Who started to explain that the swelling in my knee was because my chi was out of balance and that a spinal adjustment would fix it. I explained that the knee swelling was due to a severly stretched medial colateral ligament and that with his woo he wasn’t going to touch me and I walked out.

    Those three weeks were my only contact with chiropractors. Ever. One was very good and there was no bullshit. The other four I met were somewhere out in lalaland and wanted to take me there.

  317. Louis says

    Brownian,

    How’s “So much for free exchange of ideas” fit in?

    {Checks card}

    B….B….BINGO!!!! HOUSE!!! HOUSE!!!!

    What do I win?

    I just love it when people who are trying to de facto censor people complain about censorship that isn’t actually censorship at all, whilst denying their own attempts to silence and censor. It makes me feel all warm and smushy inside.

    Louis

  318. Brownian says

    Did I do that right? ;-)

    You can also preface your comment by telling the person you’re intending to insult that you see them as a leader, and how very very much they’ve disappointed your tender young heart. Wring your hands as you do so. Insist that you’re part of a movement, and the movement can only progress if everyone acts like you, all decent and proper and classy-like.

    Then, once you’ve asserted yourself as having the moral high ground, feel free to say whatever you want.

    I realize some of you prefer your faithists young, tender and medium rare, some of us like them roasted over a slow fire, basted in the juices of kittens.

    Or as tattered ribbons of wind-dried flesh, hanging from heads on pikes.

    I’m not classy, er, choosey.

  319. Brownian says

    What do I win?

    Nothing. The game begins anew, and plays out ad nauseum until you’re dead, because those you’re playing against value the game (“free exchange of ideas”, they’ll call their nagging) more than anything.

    It’s kind of like torture, but less enjoyable and productive.

  320. chigau (違う) says

    Louis
    Thank you for the lovely compliment :)
    You did very well :P
    I think :/
    (keep ‘em guessing)

  321. Brother Ogvorbis, OM . . . Really? says

    It’s kind of like torture, but less enjoyable and productive.

    But torture is neither enjoyable nor product . . . .

    Oh.

    Nevermind.

  322. Louis says

    Brownian and Chigau,

    Okay, I think I am getting the hang of it. How about this:

    “Dear Atheist Leader,

    You are not a very nice person :)

    I think that you will burn in a lake of fire forever as demons poke your genitals with sharpened sticks :)

    I think you do a great deal of harm to the atheist movement by speaking at all, let alone robustly :)

    I am a better person than you because I don’t do this :)

    You are Hitler :)

    Yours in Christ :)

    Another For Real Atheist Who Is Better Than You :)

    P.S. Tut.”

    Louis

    P.S. Actually in all of this you allude to a good point Brownian, just what are these “ideas” that we should be freely exchanging? That we should occasionally be nice to people? I agree with that one. That we should occasionally not be fire breathing monsters when it comes to theists/theism? I agree with that one too. I did before these accomodationists existed. I’ve yet to hear an idea from them, other than “SHUT UP!!!!” or “Tut tut”, that merits the name, or indeed exchanging. But then I’m probably just being mean.

  323. BubbaRich says

    I had a little respect for PZ. I defended him as merely an enabler of the disgusting and destructive Pharyngulites, who was nevertheless a pretty decent guy himself who managed to share interesting facts and stories.

    This post, which will likely be little noticed nor long-remembered, will be called “an attack on atheists” by “a stupid accommodationist.” But I think all of you have a serious problem.

    I’ve watched, for years now, for signs of what you accuse Stedman, and even worse MOONEY and even Genie Scott of doing. I have never once, not one single time, seen them say anything anti-science, anti-reality, or anti-realism. I have never once heard them promote anything anti-science, etc. I’ve seen them fight with people like Jerry Coyne and PZ Meyerz, but I have never seen them descend to ad hominem or even personal attacks. I have, however, seen Coyne and Myers descend to factual errors and ad hominem and personal attacks. I have seen both Coyne and Myers completely make up spurious charges against NCSE, like “You tell us we can’t criticize religion!” I suspect this comes from an inability to process social subtleties and cues, and it’s possible that both Coyne and Myers are mildly autistic, I rudely throw in as an aside.

    I keep looking at the links you post, hoping for some light about exactly what sin that Stedman (for example) is accused of, but the links never illuminate. They often take me to an Ophelia Benson or Jerry Coyne rant that still lacks any evidence or discussion.

    I’d like some evidence of, for example, Stedman’s crimes against humanity. Describe exactly what his sin is, and point me to the evidence for the sin, with some context.

    I know people who are like what you’re accusing, who are so wishy-washy they end up supporting something horrible. I have a Facebook friend who has been defending the world of Islam against ill-considered attacks from Christians, but now is offering the world of Islam as a fundamentally better place to be a human than the Christian West. So I’m not averse to seeing evidence for foolishness from people I’ve admired for other things. PZ Myers falls into that same category for me, now, since I’ve been a fan and an occasional interlocutor since his early talk.origins days. So I thought I’d lob one last try for clear accusations and clear evidence. Although his childish tantrum here in the comments might be beyond absolution unless he has evidence that Stedman is eating atheist babies…

  324. tomh says

    @ #389

    Why should anyone go out of their way to satisfy you? You could just read Stedman and come to your own conclusions.

  325. BubbaRich says

    @#390

    I’ve read Stedman several times in the last couple of years, and haven’t found anything. Many people here and elsewhere make all sorts of outrageous accusations, but with too few particulars to actually see it happening. The worst thing I’ve seen from Stedman is that he works with religious believers, and he has said that some people here are rude. I don’t have any problem with the first, and the second is obviously true, reading just this thread.

    I’ve just re-read some of PZ’s interaction with Vlad above, and Vlad comes across as the patient adult. Maybe I missed some of that, so I’m not drawing any conclusions based on that.

    But I’ve looked, and I haven’t found evidence. I know and like Genie Scott, I’ve agreed with probably everything I’ve heard her say, and I’ve definitely never heard her say anything that PZ complains about coming from the NCSE.

    I’m perfectly willing to believe that some “accommodationists” do things that I find unacceptably wishy-washy or dishonest, but I’d like to see some evidence, just a quote (with context) of something like that.

  326. Sastra says

    BubbaRich #389 wrote:

    I’ve watched, for years now, for signs of what you accuse Stedman, and even worse MOONEY and even Genie Scott of doing. I have never once, not one single time, seen them say anything anti-science, anti-reality, or anti-realism. I have never once heard them promote anything anti-science, etc.

    I think you misunderstand the gnu atheist position. We are not accusing the accomodationists of promoting bad science (or pseudoscience like creationism.)

    We are complaining because they are lending their support to the view that “science can’t say anything one way or the other about religion.” They hope that this will keep religion away from science and deal with the “extremists” who put it in.

    This view also keeps science away from religion.

    We do not want to play this diplomatic game. There are some very good reasons not to.

    There was a lot more in your post but this is the first thing I read with which I disagreed.

  327. says

    I’m perfectly willing to believe that some “accommodationists” do things that I find unacceptably wishy-washy or dishonest, but I’d like to see some evidence, just a quote (with context) of something like that.

    How about enabling a hoax by repeating a story from a source without fact checking it and defending the person when the liar was exposed?

  328. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I’ve just re-read some of PZ’s interaction with Vlad above, and Vlad comes across as the patient adult. Maybe I missed some of that, so I’m not drawing any conclusions based on that.

    You must be another sycophant. There is nothing adult about vlad, who not only tattles like a prissy school kid, but is somebody who won’t take responsibility for his actions, and lying and bullshitting about it in order to avoid adult responsibility.

  329. you_monster says

    I’ve just re-read some of PZ’s interaction with Vlad above, and Vlad comes across as the patient adult.

    Let me guess, you find PZ’s tone offensive?

    No one gives a fuck. Vlad is a cowardly liar who couldn’t come close to explaining his actions without constantly contradicting himself.

    PZ uses naughty words. Oh my.

  330. Brownian says

    The worst thing I’ve seen from Stedman is that he works with religious believers, and he has said that some people here are rude. I don’t have any problem with the first, and the second is obviously true, reading just this thread.

    I don’t have a problem with either. But the worst thing Stedman does is tell other atheists (or homosexuals) that they shouldn’t criticise relgious claims, lest we bruise their fragile egos and lose them as allies.

    Josh gives an example of Stedman’s eagerness to curry favour with the religious at the expense of fellow homosexuals in #47.

    Or the post that started this kerfuffle by JT Eberhard.

    Mooney compounds this by offering spurious support for his position, based on hearsay and his own bias. (I understand that it’s a post by that horrible man, Jerry Coyne, but he nicely details this particular story.) If you’re wondering who this “Tom Johnson” fellow is, he’s the one who orchestrated the marvellous example of an airtight case of nothing called “You’re Not Helping”.

  331. Brownian says

    I defended him as merely an enabler of the disgusting and destructive Pharyngulites

    Also, since we’re clearing things up, please provide support for the claim that the Pharyngulites are ‘destructive’ (as for disgusting, who fucking cares how you find us?).

    You know, clear accusations and clear evidence?

  332. BubbaRich says

    @394: Yes, I agree that PZ was guilty of that in this thread, and has had a similar problem in the past with loose facts, but I think that distracts from my question.

    @393: I’ve never heard that from Mooney, or Stedman, or Genie Scott. I don’t believe it myself, although I do believe the slightly different “science can’t say certain things about specific religions.” But I also believe the important corollary, “science CAN say specific things about specific religions.”

    But I think all of those people agree with that, too. But they talk to religious people, and are willing to accept them as rational human beings, and do not preface every sentence with “I know you’re a religious fool, but…”

    And just talking to religious people is what seems to get childish and disgusting displays from commenters and even PZ. Well, talking to religious people, and not doing the proper obeisance to PZ. I don’t criticize PZ for attacking religion, although I do feel that some attacks are likely counterproductive for most goals. I attack religion consistently and continually, myself, but also specifically.

    I don’t see any of them doing anything to keep scientists and rational thinkers from criticizing religion with well-founded arguments. If they do that, I would consider that a black mark against them.

  333. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Yawn, tone trolls are boring, and evidenceless. Vague generalizations and framing. Boring…

  334. A. Noyd says

    BubbaRich (#399)

    And just talking to religious people is what seems to get childish and disgusting displays from commenters and even PZ. Well, talking to religious people, and not doing the proper obeisance to PZ.

    If all you’re going to do is lie about the issues Gnus have with accomos, then just fuck off already, you scabby little hamster’s scrotum.

  335. Brownian says

    But they talk to religious people, and are willing to accept them as rational human beings, and do not preface every sentence with “I know you’re a religious fool, but…”

    So, we’re pretty much done here.

  336. says

    BubbaRich:

    I don’t see any of them doing anything to keep scientists and rational thinkers from criticizing religion with well-founded arguments.

    No, they do worse: they castigate vocal atheists for asking for well-founded arguments from theists. They get upset when we confront religious fantasy and call it fantasy. They get upset when we ask hard questions — questions like, “What’s your evidence for your god, again?”

    They get upset when people are vocally angry when a progressive religious leader (one who supports civil unions, but not full marriage) refuses to run an extremely tasteful and lovely LGBT ad. They get upset when true progressives are tired of the status quo, because the status quo is fucking them over.

    They get upset when anyone makes waves.

    A calm ocean changes nothing.

    I’m going to make some fuckin’ waves.

  337. says

    I had a little respect for PZ. I defended him as merely an enabler of the disgusting and destructive Pharyngulites, who was nevertheless a pretty decent guy himself who managed to share interesting facts and stories.

    Huh.

    His enabling of the disgusting and destructive Pharyngulites is what I like best about him.

    Diff’rent strokes.

  338. Sastra says

    Bubba Rich #399 wrote:

    @393: I’ve never heard that from Mooney, or Stedman, or Genie Scott.

    By “that” I assume you mean my sentence “science can’t say anything one way or another.” Perhaps they haven’t said that specifically — it’s a popular way of expressing that there is no inherent conflict between science and religion. And my understanding is that they (or their organizations) have gone on record on that issue (I’m less sure about Stedman, I’m not too familiar with him.)

    But they talk to religious people, and are willing to accept them as rational human beings, and do not preface every sentence with “I know you’re a religious fool, but…”

    So do the gnus.
    I think your use of hyperbole here is a bad choice.

  339. Sastra says

    Correction:

    By “that” I assume you mean my sentence “science can’t say anything one way or another about God

  340. tomh says

    an enabler of the disgusting and destructive Pharyngulites

    Waste of time trying to satisfy BubbaRich. No evidence would be good enough. But I want to know what those destructive Pharyngulites have destroyed recently. I love to look at ruins.

  341. says

    BubbaRich:

    I don’t believe it myself, although I do believe the slightly different “science can’t say certain things about specific religions.” But I also believe the important corollary, “science CAN say specific things about specific religions.”

    Y’know, I think I see the problem here.

    You appear to see this as a philosophical discussion about the ultimate nature of reality, with no real adverse side-effects. This is just a debate about whether or not a god or gods exist, with theists on one side, and atheists on the other, and tea, scones, and science in the middle. A nice polite mid-afternoon discussion.

    But that ain’t the way of it, my sweet little Eggnog. Religion causes real harm to a lot of real people. If you want to know why people like me are angry, it’s because we shouldn’t have to restrict ourselves to polite conversation while real people are experiencing real pain because of religion.

    And I’m fucking tired of people like Mooney telling me I have to be polite, that I should just simmer down and treat religion with respect. Fuck that. Respect is earned, not given, and religion doesn’t deserve one fucking troy ounce of respect. And while I don’t give a fuck what people believe, folks’d damned well better expect some fallout when their fucked-up religious beliefs cause them to act in a manner that causes real fucking harm.

    All this kissing the asses of religious folks simply because they hold superstitious beliefs is fucking stupid. And I ain’t gonna do it.

    So fuck the Mooneys and the Stedmans and everyone who thinks we should shut up and be polite because we’re all just trying to get along. Because we’re not all just trying to get along. There are many on the side of religion who don’t give a flying fuck about getting along. They just care that their kids don’t become Evil Darwinists or, worse yet, gay. So to make sure that doesn’t happen, they’re going to make sure gays can’t be seen. They’ll do their damnedest to put ‘em back in the closet.

    And that causes real harm.

    I don’t try to get along with anyone who causes real harm to real people.

    Fuck. That.

  342. BubbaRich says

    Thanks, @397 Brownian.

    Your first example example about Sojourners is a perfect sample of what is (IMO) wrong with the attacks on Stedman. I don’t know that I would have said what they said myself (not being gay OR Christian), but I found it very human and very moral. They made the point very well that they were not defending Sojourners OR the decision to exclude the ad, but they were defending their own continued work with Sojourners, and suggesting that certain attacks on Sojourners over this were counterproductive.

    JT’s post was a little childish, but I don’t think I would have sent the tweet Stedman sent that started it. Silverman’s original comment was also childish, but I think the pointlessness of making his comment is matched by the pointlessness of Stedman’s tweet response.

    YNH and the whole TJ story are very silly, and childish, and I think using that story as an important example was also foolish. I wouldn’t do anything like that, and I’d think a little less of anybody who did. But just a little less. I think a little less than that of people for their attacks against people just for working with religious believers. I think MUCH less of PZ for the way he aims his huddles masses at people he doesn’t like.

    And Brownian, if you want examples of destructiveness, PZ’s response #58 has a little of that, along with so much irony I almost drowned reading it. Several of the attacks on Vlad in this thread are, although I also think his “word to the employer” was ill-considered. I can’t say that any of the rest of it rises from childishness enough to be destructive. And PLEASE don’t take offense to that, or at least consider if that’s your target before you do.

    So, again, thanks Brownian for the links. I’d like some more if anybody has anything specifically about Stedman that I disagree with. Or about NCSE, although nobody has brought that particular one up in this thread.

  343. BubbaRich says

    No, Sastra, I’ve actually seen that criticism lobbed as the entire criticism from a gnu to an accommodationist.

  344. BubbaRich says

    Yes, Religion causes real harm to real people. Religion also does real good for real people. Attacking people because they do not attack all religion with equal, constant ferocity is rather foolish.

    I haven’t seen Stedman telling you to be quiet. The post Brownian sent said that THIS particular attack against THIS particular group was likely to be unproductive, and that he would continue to work with that particular group. Do you have any examples of more general orders to be quiet and not criticize obviously destructive behavior from religious people or groups?

  345. BubbaRich says

    Sorry to disappoint you, tomh. Amusing that you give up so easily, though. Like any other religious person when challenged for evidence…

  346. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    Bubbarich,

    You can suck up to the goddists all you want. Have a nice time. We wait with bated breath for news of your success in converting any of them to rationality. We just ask one thing. Don’t whine because not everyone is an accommodationist like you.

    Now, do you have anything else you want to fuss about? Are you done telling us how disappointed you are with us? Do you want to complain that we don’t give a rat’s ass about your bruised feelings?

  347. BubbaRich says

    No, they do worse: they castigate vocal atheists for asking for well-founded arguments from theists. They get upset when we confront religious fantasy and call it fantasy. They get upset when we ask hard questions — questions like, “What’s your evidence for your god, again?”

    Do you have any evidence of this? Brownian sent the link about the Sojourners ad rejection, and I think you need to re-read Stedman’s comment.

  348. Sastra says

    BubbaRich #410 wrote:

    No, Sastra, I’ve actually seen that criticism lobbed as the entire criticism from a gnu to an accommodationist.

    Really?

    I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here. Are you saying that you have actually seen a gnu atheist castigate an accomodationist with the accusation “You talk to religious people, and are willing to accept them as rational human beings, and do not preface every sentence with “I know you’re a religious fool, but…!”

    If so, could you please tell me/us who said that, and to whom, and in what context? Call it morbid curiosity.

  349. BubbaRich says

    Bubbarich, You can suck up to the goddists all you want. Have a nice time. We wait with bated breath for news of your success in converting any of them to rationality. We just ask one thing. Don’t whine because not everyone is an accommodationist like you. Now, do you have anything else you want to fuss about? Are you done telling us how disappointed you are with us? Do you want to complain that we don’t give a rat’s ass about your bruised feelings?

    Interesting response to a request for evidence. Thanks again to Brownian for providing some for me to evaluate.

    Anger and shouting can be good, and productive, but like the Occupy movement, you’ll just disappear when there’s real work to be done.

    My only question here is about your attacks on people you label accommodationist. Although I occasionally disagree with the people you so label, I find your attacks, in general, to be worse. Does that make me an accommodationist? I mock religions and religious people even more, daily, when they do destructive things.

  350. BubbaRich says

    Oops, messed up the block cite in the previous post…

    Sastra, the last time I remember that was in some attack, and I think it was from PZ himself, against the NCSE about working with a group of theistic evolutionists for some seminar or something like that. Sorry to be so vague…I’ll look it up this evening.

  351. Classical Cipher, Murmur Muris, OM says

    Anger and shouting can be good, and productive, but like the Occupy movement, you’ll just disappear when there’s real work to be done.

    So much wrong.

  352. tomh says

    BubbaRich wrote:

    Religion causes real harm to real people. Religion also does real good for real people

    You make it sound like they are two equal things, which is nonsense. The paltry good that comes from religion doesn’t compare to things like, kids dying because they’re denied medical care for the sake of religion, doctors killed for the sake of religion, gays killed and oppressed for the sake of religion, the economic harm that comes to millions of Americans because of the religious privilege that is written into the laws, and a myriad of other harms that religion causes. No one cares about philosophy or what anyone believes, it’s the actions that these beliefs prompt that count.

    And because not every religionist does every one of these things doesn’t excuse anyone. For fear of losing their own privileges, the so-called liberal religions insist that no matter how extreme, all religions should enjoy the same unwarranted privileges that they do. Which makes them greedy and just as guilty.

  353. Brownian says

    YNH and the whole TJ story are very silly, and childish, and I think using that story as an important example was also foolish.

    You said you’ve never seen…blah, blah, blah…from Mooney.

    I provided an example of a factual error by Mooney. After that, I don’t give a shit about your subjective feelings of ‘disgust’ or ‘importance.’

    From now on, you can no longer say you’ve “never seen” Mooney make such an error.

    I wouldn’t do anything like that, and I’d think a little less of anybody who did.

    Who asked you what you’d do? I don’t think anyone here cares in the least.

    I think a little less than that of people for their attacks against people just for working with religious believers.

    You’re very fond of asserting that this is our problem with accommodationists, not so much for producing evidence that this is this the case.

    I work with believers of multiple faiths. I’ve never once been castigated for this by anyone here.

    Since you’re happy to trade in anecdotes, game, set, and match, I think.

    And Brownian, if you want examples of destructiveness, PZ’s response #58 has a little of that, along with so much irony I almost drowned reading it.

    Well, we’re all very glad you survived such a harrowing encounter. But just a little.

    But you said ‘destructive': what was destroyed?

    I only ask because you seem overly fond of subjective slurs. It’s at odds with your demands that we pony up clear, conclusive evidence.

    Like any other religious person when challenged for evidence…

    Can just one fucking critic of this blog please fucking refrain from the kind of shit you’re criticising us for while you fucking criticise us for it?

    For fuck’s fucking sake.

  354. Brownian says

    Anger and shouting can be good, and productive

    …but you prefer strawmanning your interlocutors—we know.

    Please, continue to argue from your high ground. The internet is not yet completely full of obliviousness.

  355. Sastra says

    BubbaRich #417 wrote:

    Sastra, the last time I remember that was in some attack, and I think it was from PZ himself, against the NCSE about working with a group of theistic evolutionists for some seminar or something like that.

    I’m looking forward to seeing the actual quote, but the situation you’re describing doesn’t sound like PZ is going to complain that someone is willing to “talk to religious people, (be) willing to accept them as rational human beings, and (not) preface every sentence with “I know you’re a religious fool, but…!” It sounds to me as if there might be room for complaint over a specific situation: a science organization helping to set up a seminar on “how to think about God.”

    I have seen PZ talking to religious people and he did not preface every sentence with “I know you’re a religious fool, but…!” As to whether he thought them rational human beings or not, I think that on the whole our frustration is not that religious people are irrational in general, but that they’ve got a blind spot when it comes to religion.

    I warned you that the hyperbole would get you in trouble — if I thought you meant it.

  356. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    BubbaRich #416

    Interesting response to a request for evidence. Thanks again to Brownian for providing some for me to evaluate.

    I was cutting the obfuscating bullshit. You wanted to whine about how mean we are to accommodationists and goddists and how we should be nice to goddists like the accommodationists (which you pretend you’re not). All I said was you can suck up to the goddists all you want. If you don’t want to suck up to them, then don’t. Just stop whining about people who don’t hold your accommodationist viewpoint.

    Anger and shouting can be good, and productive, but like the Occupy movement, you’ll just disappear when there’s real work to be done.

    Citation sorely needed. Show me where gnu atheists fear to go where accommodations stride boldly. For that matter, show me accommodationists striding boldly.

    My only question here is about your attacks on people you label accommodationist.

    The only time we attack you accommodationists is when you whine about us. Like I said, play nice with goddists all you want. If being a goddists’ lickspittle makes you happy then go for it. Just stop whining because some of us aren’t quislings to atheism.

    Although I occasionally disagree with the people you so label, I find your attacks, in general, to be worse.

    Pardon me, sir. You must have mistaken me for someone who gives a damn about your opinion.

    . Does that make me an accommodationist?

    When I see evidence that you’re not an accommodationist then I’ll accept that you’re not one. So far such evidence is entirely lacking.

    I mock religions and religious people even more, daily, when they do destructive things.

    I am so fucking impressed by your alleged mockery.

  357. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I mock religions and religious people even more, daily, when they do destructive things.

    Citation needed….for everything you say….

  358. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    You asked for evidence, Bubba, that people did the things commmenters were alleging. You got it, and then immediately shrugged it off. And what you read is just the tip of the iceberg of a sustained campaign by certain prominent accommodationists to disparage, misrepresent, and foment even more distrust for vocal atheists. It’s gone on for years, and it’s been ugly.

    You don’t want to believe this. You’re very uncomfortable thinking of people whom you conceive of us “nice” and “productive” as acting in really shitty ways. So you set up a filter that permits you to not see or acknowledge it even when it’s right there, clearly delineated for you. That’s not honest, and it’s not fair.

    I don’t know why you’re here. It’s clear you’re either unwilling to or incapable of taking our complaints seriously. You’re just not going to let us be right about anything. And come on, I think you know this, too.

  359. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    Something about these kinds of threads, and the whole topic of vocal atheists vs. accommos, brings the absolute worst out in you alleged “nice” people. You shed intellectual honesty, sincere rhetorical engagement, and any shred of charity toward the argument of someone you really don’t want to be right. And you wonder why we hate you.

    Being a dishonest ass isn’t “nice” no matter how hard you refrain from using cuss words.

  360. Sastra says

    BubbaRich #411 wrote:

    Religion causes real harm to real people. Religion also does real good for real people.

    Ah, but all the good parts are secular, and rest on secular values and methods and means. How do we know this? Because if an atheist (such as you or such as me) calls it “good,” it pretty much has to, doesn’t it?

    It’s rather like an alternative medicine proponent defending the good alternative medicine does by citing the caring, the concern, the gentle exercise, the healthy diet, clinically proven herbal remedies, and other factors they think a science-based medical community will approve of. But what scientist is going to agree that those benefits are, in fact, good examples of where alternative medicine does real good for real people?

    They are more likely to say “that’s not yours. You don’t get to claim that.” And for good reason.

  361. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    Josh, Official SpokesGay #426

    Something about these kinds of threads, and the whole topic of vocal atheists vs. accommos, brings the absolute worst out in you alleged “nice” people. You shed intellectual honesty, sincere rhetorical engagement, and any shred of charity toward the argument of someone you really don’t want to be right. And you wonder why we hate you.

    We keep telling accommodationists that they can indulge in as much pampering of goddists as they want. We recognize that some people like being conciliatory and appeasing. The only thing we ask is the accommodationists stop telling us we’re “not helping.”

    Somehow this simple request is infuriating to many accommodationists. They have no problem placating goddists but let a gnu atheist wander into view and they get highly antagonistic. Apparently being accommodating only works if it’s directed toward goddists. Being accommodating towards atheists, unless they’re also accommodationists, is unrighteous.

  362. says

    No, they do worse: they castigate vocal atheists for asking for well-founded arguments from theists. They get upset when we confront religious fantasy and call it fantasy. They get upset when we ask hard questions — questions like, “What’s your evidence for your god, again?”

    Do you have any evidence of this?

    Here’s Karla McLaren writing at Stedman’s blog:

    …the Four (Dennett excluded) have put those ideas forward at the end of a fist, and in a way that questions the sanity and morality of anyone who disagrees with them. But see, that’s the point of a polemic … you put forward the most extreme version of your argument, and you don’t make any room for moderating views.

    A polemic is a deeply emotional appeal made not just with anger, but with rage; not just with sadness, but with despair; not just with fear, but with gut-wrenching terror.

    If you consider that a well-founded characterization of The God Delusion, you’re beyond reason.

    Here’s Stedman himself:

    The significant disagreement among secular folks around EDMD isn’t a new phenomenon. Our community is an oft divided bunch. This diversity can be an asset as often as it is a weakness. But the only way this will be a source for strength is if we can come to a consensus on some ground rules. The first of these must be respect for our ideological differences, a respect we must extend to communities beyond our own. [my emphasis]

    ***

    Sorry to be so vague…I’ll look it up this evening.

    We’ll be here. I’m sure it’s just as you describe it. Why don’t you go away until you’ve found it, so we have an even better sense of your reading comprehension level.

  363. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    I know, ‘Tis. It’s amazing how absolutely no good will is extended at all to gnus by the very people complaining about how awful we are.

  364. says

    “we must”

    These two words capture Stedman’s writing so well. He loves to talk about how “we” should all stop what we’re doing and start doing what he’s doing. It’s a faux-we – a you. And he’s exceedingly fond of the word “must.”

  365. says

    Our community is an oft divided bunch. This diversity can be an asset as often as it is a weakness. But the only way this will be a source for strength is if we can come to a consensus on some ground rules. The first of these must be respect for our ideological differences, a respect we must extend to communities beyond our own.

    This is actually quite funny. Stedman respects our ideological differences about religion so much that he demands we abandon our ideas and values in favor of his. Interesting idea of respect.

  366. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Anyone?

    I’m drawing a blank.

    Me too. It seems for accommodationists being not a dick is more important than the truth. But, sometimes telling the truth makes one look like a dick…I’d rather be the dick with the truth, rather than the accommodationist with the the fear…

  367. consciousness razor says

    Still not sure what it is, but I have other ways of knowing there must be something. Perhaps it is godlessness. Yes, that’s it. That they are atheists is something very, very special and is enough to know that we’re on “the same side.”

    The first of these must be respect for our ideological differences, a respect we must extend to communities beyond our own.

    And now these three remain: faith, dishonesty and accommodationism. But the greatest of these is accommodationism.

  368. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    My apologies for using the term “dick”. I couldn’t see a way to make my point without using it. *wanders off saying a hundred “hail ramens”*

  369. julian says

    Stedman respects our ideological differences about religion so much that he demands we abandon our ideas and values in favor of his.

    And that’s why I ultimately cannot stand him. His whole approach to everything is ‘set your differences aside.’

    Um, excuse me, that guy just told me I’m evil for existing. I think this is a difference we should talk about. In fact, I think that’s bigotry.* Bigotry is one of those things we shouldn’t tolerate. We should be fighting it.

    *which I know he so hates to recognize.

  370. BubbaRich says

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/12/the_battle_over_ncse.php

    What raises hackles is that once again NCSE is caught promoting a cult event, a group of theologians and preachers gathering to babble incompetently about evolution. As usual, they’re being selective: Spong and Giberson and their ilk will always get a thumbs-up from the NCSE, but they don’t seem to appreciate that they are almost as great a minority as atheists, and that supporting this one slippery version of Christianity is not going to suddenly win over the majority to their side. The fact that most of the participants at this conference are generally nice people is not a reason to argue that they’re right.

    This is what he was going from: Webcast: Evolving Christianity

    The reason for this announcement is that the NCSE continues to spread the word to Christians that evolution can be fit into their cosmology. Here are his complaints:

    1. Demonstrate some rigor in who they’re going to promote.

    This is a complaint that he doesn’t approve of them announcing this event. It ends up being a whiny complaint that they’ll “give the thumbs up” to any even that says they support evolution education, EVEN IF THEY DON’T SUPPORT IT LIKE PZ WANTS. EVERN IF THEY REFUSE TO DENY A GOD! PZ wants philosophical purity, but he seems to know less philosophy than Sam Harris.

    2. Be more equitable in distributing information.

    They need to announce more specifically atheist events. Because atheists needs to be convinced that evolution describes the history of life?

    Based on these complaints, he judges that the NCSE needs to

    Get back on track with an honest neutrality on the conflict between science and religion, please.

    He’s accusing the NCSE of promoting religion. He says they need to stop. He’s basing this on an announcement of a webcast of a bunch of liberal Christian theologians discussing how they believe in evolution, and a failure to advertise Richard Dawkins’ speeches. This is an amazingly clueless whine, and I’m a little sad it’s not followed by a bunch of responses pointing out that he had completely mischaracterized the NCSE’s attitude, and that he is trying to force a wedge between the NCSE and liberal Christian theologians for some reason that I haven’t quite fathomed. Is he upset that the cheerleaders are sitting with the football team and not the band nerds?

    Don’t you see that he’s completely mischaracterizing the NCSE, both for promoting Christianity, and for discriminating against atheists. I haven’t found them doing either. I have never heard the NCSE declare that theistic evolution is a better or more scientific answer than atheistic evolution. But PZ is claiming this is their position. As near as I can find any evidence, he’s creating a strawman, and demolishing it very effectively.

    I saw some things earlier from Mooney, especially, that I don’t agree with, but still nothing that meets PZ’s and especially his crewe’s overheated rhetoric. I can’t tell if he doesn’t use the same sort of hyperbole when he’s mocking (for instance) Catholics, or if I just find it more appropriate for that target.

  371. says

    he is trying to force a wedge between the NCSE and liberal Christian theologians for some reason that I haven’t quite fathomed.

    That was late 2010, and PZ has since advocated a stance of “many approaches”, under which he will “encourage [accomodationists] to be as nice as they possibly can, and go forth and win the citizenry over to the side of reason with the effulgent power of goodness!”

    Have you got an example of PZ violating that stance after May 2011?

  372. A. Noyd says

    @BubbaRich (#441)

    Please explain how PZ’s stated desire for “an honest neutrality on the conflict between science and religion” on the part of the NCSE translates to him wanting them to “deny god.”

  373. Sastra says

    BubbaRich #441 wrote:

    … He’s accusing the NCSE of promoting religion. He says they need to stop….

    Wait, what? Is this your example? Is this your response to my request at #415?

    Are you saying that you have actually seen a gnu atheist castigate an accomodationist with the accusation “You talk to religious people, and are willing to accept them as rational human beings, and do not preface every sentence with “I know you’re a religious fool, but…!”
    If so, could you please tell me/us who said that, and to whom, and in what context?

    and you wrote:

    Sastra, the last time I remember that was in some attack, and I think it was from PZ himself, against the NCSE about working with a group of theistic evolutionists for some seminar or something like that. Sorry to be so vague…I’ll look it up this evening.

    I know it sounds like I’m changing the subject here — such a nice long essay you just wrote (and many things I disagree with) — but is THIS your example where you have “actually seen that criticism lobbed as the entire criticism from a gnu to an accommodationist?” (#410)

  374. John Morales says

    BubbaRich: Your adumbrations and opinions are (to put it kindly) over-generous and very disputable.

    The reason for this announcement is that the NCSE continues to spread the word to Christians that evolution can be fit into their cosmology.

    A bit more than that:
    The promo from your linked website: Interested in exploring the issues raised by science and faith? A free webcast series promises to assemble “thirty of today’s most inspiring Christian leaders and esteemed scientists for a groundbreaking dialogue on how an evolutionary worldview can enrich your life, deepen your faith, and bless our world.”

    Pure accommodationism coached in religious language.

    Based on these complaints, he judges that the NCSE needs to

    Get back on track with an honest neutrality on the conflict between science and religion, please.

    He’s accusing the NCSE of promoting religion. He says they need to stop. He’s basing this on an announcement of a webcast of a bunch of liberal Christian theologians discussing how they believe in evolution, and a failure to advertise Richard Dawkins’ speeches.

    Funny, because it seems to be all about deepening one’s faith. Next part of the promo (to which you linked):
    To be broadcast throughout December 2010 and January 2011, “Evolutionary Christianity — Conversations at the Leading Edge of Faith” includes interviews with NCSE Supporter Kenneth R. Miller, discussing “Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul,” as well as Ian Barbour, John Cobb, Michael Dowd, John F. Haught, Karl W. Giberson, Owen Gingerich, Denis Lamoureux, John Polkinghorne, John Shelby Spong, Charles H. Townes, and a host of further scientists and scholars who regard their acceptance of evolution as expanding and enriching their faith.

    (my emphasis)

    See, we gnus aren’t into trying to expand and enrich the goddists’ faith*; their religious faith being the whole basis for the problem.

    * Unless this mob are being disingenuous in that claim, given it’s a claim that evolutionary science is not just compatible with religious belief, but indeed strengthens it (contrary to evidence).

  375. John Morales says

    BubbaRich:

    They need to announce more specifically atheist events. Because atheists needs to be convinced that evolution describes the history of life?

    Surely you’re not claiming to have inferred this from what you quoted, where the closest to that I can find is this:
    As usual, they’re being selective: Spong and Giberson and their ilk will always get a thumbs-up from the NCSE, but they don’t seem to appreciate that they are almost as great a minority as atheists, and that supporting this one slippery version of Christianity is not going to suddenly win over the majority to their side.

    (Because, if so, you should be aware that it doesn’t say what you apparently think it says!)

  376. John Morales says

    BubbaRich:

    Don’t you see that he’s completely mischaracterizing the NCSE, both for promoting Christianity, and for discriminating against atheists.

    Given my two previous comments, I put it to you that you have failed to make a compelling case for your claims, and (again, to be kind) your thesis looks kinda limp without support.

  377. John Morales says

    PS What’s particularly annoying above is how ‘evolution’ is being promoted as something that is to be accepted on on the same (epistemic) basis any other theological claim, and for much the same reason.

    (Doin’ it wrong, that is!)

  378. A. Noyd says

    John Morales (#446)

    …you should be aware that it doesn’t say what you apparently think it says.

    That rather characterizes BubbaRich’s posts in general. Which is ironic given how noisy the goober is being about the sins of strawmanning and misrepresentation.

  379. John Morales says

    [meta]

    A. Noyd, not so shabby at chucking poison into the well, either…

    * I think MUCH less of PZ for the way he aims his huddles masses at people he doesn’t like.
    * Well, talking to religious people, and not doing the proper obeisance to PZ.
    * PZ’s and especially his crewe’s overheated rhetoric.
    * I suspect this comes from an inability to process social subtleties and cues, and it’s possible that both Coyne and Myers are mildly autistic, I rudely throw in as an aside.

  380. says

    Don’t you see that he’s completely mischaracterizing the NCSE, both for promoting Christianity, and for discriminating against atheists. I haven’t found them doing either.

    Yes, as I suspected Bubba’s example has shown him to be ignorant and incapable of reading for comprehension. The NCSE’s official position on the matter is one of neutrality. This is not how they behave in actuality, though they continue to repeat the claim that they do. When this event was being promoted and they were being criticized for it, NCSE people claimed that “NCSE advertises a wide range of resources — theistic, atheistic, and agnostic in tone — relating to the defense and promotion of teaching evolution in public schools.” When I looked for evidence that they’d advertised Dawkins’ Greatest Show events (which, to the best of my knowledge, were not “atheistic in tone” in any way other than not being theistic), I couldn’t find any. When I asked about it, the question was ignored.

    Neutrality means that they don’t promote any position-taking events on the subject, or that they promote any solid educational events regardless of their position or “tone.” This neutrailty, again, is what they claim, but not what they actually do. They promote a Christian vision of evolution and accommodationist works and events, but not atheistic ones or even those simply by atheists. That is not in keeping with their stated policy (which I think is a good one), and it is dishonest.

    Furthermore, certain former and present representatives of the NCSE have turned gnu-bashing into a cottage industry. Check out the archives of Rosenau’s blog for the past couple of years. That this isn’t done in their official capacity is irrelevant. Gnu atheists should not be expected to put up with the barrage and to continue to support the organization these people represent.
    It would be fine for them to change their policy and say outright that they are, in the interest of outreach, focusing on accommodationism and theistic evolution. I would be unhappy about it as I think a neutrality policy is a good one. It is not OK for them to mislead real or potential supporters of their organization with false claims of neutrality.

    As John Morales, has pointed out, even if you fail to grasp what our argument is here, this is in no way an example illustrating your claim. I will therefore continue to conclude that you cannot follow these discussions with reason and honesty.

    This is a complaint that he doesn’t approve of them announcing this event. It ends up being a whiny complaint that they’ll “give the thumbs up” to any even that says they support evolution education, EVEN IF THEY DON’T SUPPORT IT LIKE PZ WANTS. EVERN IF THEY REFUSE TO DENY A GOD!

    As I said.