There is reason to believe that at least one of the trolls might be DVDbach, who was banned before, but promised to comment here anyway. Google's Blogspot does leave the door open to trolls by not offering a blocker, other than the general blocker which is total comment moderation. Which of course means that in dealing with trolls, everyone who accesses the blog commenting feature is inconvenienced by having to deal with a single fool.
I'm thinking about bolting Blogspot and going to Wordpress, but that would involve a cash outlay that I would prefer to avoid. So I don't know. Maybe wordpress can't block individual IP's either.
But I do apologize for the inconvenience, and I hope that you will comment as freely as if we were not so inconvenienced.
Showing posts with label Rules of the Blog. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rules of the Blog. Show all posts
Sunday, January 19, 2014
Saturday, January 18, 2014
House Cleaning Time...
Folks, I am about to clean house here, removing the trolls yet again. Seems like every six months or so, a good pest removal is in order. This time it is a troll calling itself Choices, which person refuses to address the arguments given him, claiming there are none (typical Atheist move to avoid demonstrating their intellectual inability to support their own worldview rationally); engaging in blatant childish mimicry Tu Quoques; failing to accept its failure of logic by ignoring it; and generally displaying its emotional response rather than even attempting a rational discussion of the charges against it.
This has been tolerated up to the point of the troll demonstrating its mindless childishness, which is a waste of my time. This troll has one last chance to address the arguments made against it, and to address them in a logical straight forward manner without dissembly or deviation. If it fails to do so, then the blog will be put back on moderation for a while.
There are some other trolls here which are on the hairy edge as well. It would do them well to view the Rules of the Blog.
This has been tolerated up to the point of the troll demonstrating its mindless childishness, which is a waste of my time. This troll has one last chance to address the arguments made against it, and to address them in a logical straight forward manner without dissembly or deviation. If it fails to do so, then the blog will be put back on moderation for a while.
There are some other trolls here which are on the hairy edge as well. It would do them well to view the Rules of the Blog.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Too Funny...
I went ahead and converted the blog to an ID form of entry with the idea that the trolls and foul-mouthed juveniles would be able to identified and at a minimum the sock puppeting would be more of an effort for them, and easier to eliminate for me.
The result has been unexpected and rather spectacular. All of the commenters evaporated, except two long time denizens. I can't be sure whether this is merely a brief hiatus or a back-into-the-closet moment for those who don't want any ID at all.
I long ago shed my actual full identity when an Atheist took offense and cyber-stalked me. That was interesting until the underlying malevolence became too apparent. That's when I took down my personal information from the "about" section.
I will not stalk anyone by using their sign-in ID; there generally is not enough info in an online ID to do that, anyway. All rational and mature commenters are welcome. The rules of the blog stand, but they are not that strict. They affect only the persistently abusive and the dogmatically irrational who refuse to acknowledge logical failure.
The result has been unexpected and rather spectacular. All of the commenters evaporated, except two long time denizens. I can't be sure whether this is merely a brief hiatus or a back-into-the-closet moment for those who don't want any ID at all.
I long ago shed my actual full identity when an Atheist took offense and cyber-stalked me. That was interesting until the underlying malevolence became too apparent. That's when I took down my personal information from the "about" section.
I will not stalk anyone by using their sign-in ID; there generally is not enough info in an online ID to do that, anyway. All rational and mature commenters are welcome. The rules of the blog stand, but they are not that strict. They affect only the persistently abusive and the dogmatically irrational who refuse to acknowledge logical failure.
Friday, September 20, 2013
Are There Exactly No Atheists Willing To Defend Their Beliefs?
Trolls as intellectual barometers and benchmarks for rationality...
I wrote the following, indented below, in a comment box earlier today. Comments by the current crop of Atheists/whatevers revolve purely around personal attacks on me, my style, and how I conduct the blog - never does an Atheist take up the challenge to discuss the reasons for his belief set. So many Atheists are merely bullies intent on their meager attempts to destroy any criticism of their emotion-based and ever increasingly aggressive kinship of irrationality. It is not possible to maintain any serious discussion with a bully, especially one stranded in emotional adolescence.
The modern Atheist seems devoted to destruction of everything around him from cultural decency to any criticism which offends him. And in their mimicking of Alinsky they cover themselves in a mantle of faux morality, even after having rejected every moral principle except those of their own devising.
It is because of their overt rejection of the moral basis for the standards of civil society up until recently, and because of their increasingly destructive character, that Atheists are not trusted beyond the level of a child molester. Their arrogance and moral preening despite their obvious lack of rational reasoning make them dangerous. Categorically dangerous, from the stated destructive intentions of Dawkins who is on video saying that he wants to destroy Christianity and its influence on society – to be replaced with the irrationality which he teaches at his Atheist Camps for children… to the sad band of juvenile trolls out to destroy criticism on the web.
Atheism cannot withstand direct sunlight in the form of disciplined logical analysis of its reasons for existing, its premises, and its consequences. That is what is provided here.
I wrote the following, indented below, in a comment box earlier today. Comments by the current crop of Atheists/whatevers revolve purely around personal attacks on me, my style, and how I conduct the blog - never does an Atheist take up the challenge to discuss the reasons for his belief set. So many Atheists are merely bullies intent on their meager attempts to destroy any criticism of their emotion-based and ever increasingly aggressive kinship of irrationality. It is not possible to maintain any serious discussion with a bully, especially one stranded in emotional adolescence.
It's not difficult to tell the difference between a serious person wanting to explain "why I am convinced by evidence and logic that Atheism is necessary", and a troll who wants to harass rather than discuss.
Yet I do seem to have sympathy for the poor dears, and a desire to give them a chance to express themselves in the hopes that one might provide a rational discussion.
That is in vain it appears, and all that Atheism seems to provide is the fearful attacks that they feel necessary in their pitiful attempts to silence their opposition.
So I am also torn between silencing them completely since they are incapable of actual logical discourse regarding their beliefs, or allowing their childish banalities to be shown the light of day as evidence of their incapacity for rationality.
Right now, I'm considering going to a comment-free blog, because where ever Atheists land, a pile of trash remains behind them.
Or perhaps a membership driven blog where only those Atheists who wish to make rational explanations of their system of belief would be kept as members to discuss with the rest of us.
It's actually a shame that it comes to this, but there are boundaries and limits - at least in the rational world, if not in the world of freedom from rationality and morality.
The modern Atheist seems devoted to destruction of everything around him from cultural decency to any criticism which offends him. And in their mimicking of Alinsky they cover themselves in a mantle of faux morality, even after having rejected every moral principle except those of their own devising.
It is because of their overt rejection of the moral basis for the standards of civil society up until recently, and because of their increasingly destructive character, that Atheists are not trusted beyond the level of a child molester. Their arrogance and moral preening despite their obvious lack of rational reasoning make them dangerous. Categorically dangerous, from the stated destructive intentions of Dawkins who is on video saying that he wants to destroy Christianity and its influence on society – to be replaced with the irrationality which he teaches at his Atheist Camps for children… to the sad band of juvenile trolls out to destroy criticism on the web.
Atheism cannot withstand direct sunlight in the form of disciplined logical analysis of its reasons for existing, its premises, and its consequences. That is what is provided here.
Friday, August 24, 2012
The Perils of Blogging
It's my own fault. I know that. For quite some time I have been unhappy with the level of discourse here. For some reason which is foggy to me at the moment I had thought it beneficial to respond to the commenters here, and for quite a while back there at the beginning, the interchange was cordial and probing and interesting and pertinent. The intent of the blog was and still should be to address the concepts which Atheists put forth in defense of their rejection of deity and religion. Those concepts include the findings of science and how they relate to nonphysical existence, the attempts to eliminate the mind in favor of the deterministic brain, the actual material evidence for evolution, whether humans have agency or are deluded, what constitutes and qualifies as knowledge, what skepticism actually produces, the principles and discipline of logic and the principle of grounded deductive arguments, and a great many other stimulating (to me) subjects.
It didn't take all that long for the blog to attract those who wanted just one thing: to push their agenda regardless of any argument against the logic of their comments. A few became belligerent and obstructionist, and some of them got booted from commenting here. Some pushed the limit continually and I failed to boot them even in the midst of constant name calling and denigration in virtually every comment. I attempted to demonstrate logic errors and to respond to rational lapses, but that too fell victim to the Ad Hominem attacks. When I should have terminated commenters, I tried to at least contain them.
That I regret.
Along about then I thought it would be good to allow such commenting in order to demonstrate the rational content (lack thereof) in the thought process of these proponents of Atheism, and their inevitable Leftism. But in the course of time that sort of discussion brought down the quality of this blog to what is now an abominable level, with name calling and charges of hate (the new “racism”) in almost every day's fare of comments.
That stops here. I have indulged it for too long. In a sense it was inevitable because I failed to properly police the commenting and to enforce my own rules more stringently. Now I wonder if commenting is even a productive feature to allow here. I’m not sure. But it is tempting to cut it off permanently. Atheists still have their spew spots, a lot of them; they don’t need this one too.
On the other hand I truly miss having actual conversations which contain something more than mere denials, obstructionism and denigrations. I don’t quite know how to regain that. But it will require moderation of comments and commenters, for certain… maybe even require membership, which is an available feature in blogger. I’d not like that, but I have to place control on the level of thought and discourse somehow.
So either this blog will be pulled up from the sewage in which it is now mired, and if it can’t be, then it should be terminated. Yes, the fault is mine. It’s my responsibility to change it.
So for the time being there will be no comments on the blog. You can always email me if you wish, and I might or might not respond.
It didn't take all that long for the blog to attract those who wanted just one thing: to push their agenda regardless of any argument against the logic of their comments. A few became belligerent and obstructionist, and some of them got booted from commenting here. Some pushed the limit continually and I failed to boot them even in the midst of constant name calling and denigration in virtually every comment. I attempted to demonstrate logic errors and to respond to rational lapses, but that too fell victim to the Ad Hominem attacks. When I should have terminated commenters, I tried to at least contain them.
That I regret.
Along about then I thought it would be good to allow such commenting in order to demonstrate the rational content (lack thereof) in the thought process of these proponents of Atheism, and their inevitable Leftism. But in the course of time that sort of discussion brought down the quality of this blog to what is now an abominable level, with name calling and charges of hate (the new “racism”) in almost every day's fare of comments.
That stops here. I have indulged it for too long. In a sense it was inevitable because I failed to properly police the commenting and to enforce my own rules more stringently. Now I wonder if commenting is even a productive feature to allow here. I’m not sure. But it is tempting to cut it off permanently. Atheists still have their spew spots, a lot of them; they don’t need this one too.
On the other hand I truly miss having actual conversations which contain something more than mere denials, obstructionism and denigrations. I don’t quite know how to regain that. But it will require moderation of comments and commenters, for certain… maybe even require membership, which is an available feature in blogger. I’d not like that, but I have to place control on the level of thought and discourse somehow.
So either this blog will be pulled up from the sewage in which it is now mired, and if it can’t be, then it should be terminated. Yes, the fault is mine. It’s my responsibility to change it.
So for the time being there will be no comments on the blog. You can always email me if you wish, and I might or might not respond.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Comment Moderation is OFF.
I have just lost three more comments after hitting the publish button.
Comment moderation has been turned off for the time being. Commenting here is a privilege, and it can be shut off entirely if I wish: it is my blog. I almost never delete comments on purpose, the exception being for violation of the rules of the blog. And since I am now losing comments, I am quite certain that I hit the publish button. When they disappear, there is no notice of publication, nor is there a notice of deletion; there is no recovery bin to retrieve from. They are just gone.
I have complained to Google. Until something is done on this new blogspot software to stop this loss, I will allow unmoderated commenting. I will now summarily delete comments that do not conform to the rules of the blog.
This blog is not a forum for insults and denigration of the positions of others, it is intended to be a rational analysis of Atheist positions. Comments containing insults will be deleted. If you wish to maintain a conversation, be civil.
Comment moderation has been turned off for the time being. Commenting here is a privilege, and it can be shut off entirely if I wish: it is my blog. I almost never delete comments on purpose, the exception being for violation of the rules of the blog. And since I am now losing comments, I am quite certain that I hit the publish button. When they disappear, there is no notice of publication, nor is there a notice of deletion; there is no recovery bin to retrieve from. They are just gone.
I have complained to Google. Until something is done on this new blogspot software to stop this loss, I will allow unmoderated commenting. I will now summarily delete comments that do not conform to the rules of the blog.
This blog is not a forum for insults and denigration of the positions of others, it is intended to be a rational analysis of Atheist positions. Comments containing insults will be deleted. If you wish to maintain a conversation, be civil.
Friday, January 6, 2012
A Failure of Amnesty.
Not too long ago I allowed amnesty to those who have been banned from the blog in the past, on the theory that perhaps they had reconsidered their approach and thoughts about logic and logical discussions.
Almost immediately I had to reassert the ban on one individual, and others are finding their time becoming limited here.
PZ actually has a link to a list of people he has banned from his blog. I need to create the same sort of list, but with links to their comments for reference, so that sock puppets are also avoided. It's unfortunate that it comes to this, especially when all that is asked of commenters is that they be civil and accept logic as the basis of discussion.
If that needs clarification, by logic I mean the accepted methods of inductive and deductive logic - primarily deductive - as they are presented in college textbooks. This means that "I think I am logical" is NOT an acceptable approach to rational thinking. Nor is dodging questions, changing definitions, refusing to acknowledge logical errors (or worse, Special Pleading that they actually work fine for this particular case). Coversations can be impeded in a great many ways, because there are many types of falseness. In comparison, there is only one truth, the rest is not-truth (false). Impeding a conversation which is dedicated to finding that which is valid and that which is true, by asserting any and all manner of falseness, demanding that it be accepted, while not accepting either that the falseness shown to them applies to their assertion, or that the counter assertion is, in fact, within the bounds of logic, is merely obstructionism, not rational conversation. Such obstructionism will be pointed out, and then if it is not corrected, the offender will be banned.
If a commenter cannot even study logic enough to know what it actually is, and then insists on dominating discussions with absolute illogic, he is in jeopardy of losing his privileges here. Permanently.
Almost immediately I had to reassert the ban on one individual, and others are finding their time becoming limited here.
PZ actually has a link to a list of people he has banned from his blog. I need to create the same sort of list, but with links to their comments for reference, so that sock puppets are also avoided. It's unfortunate that it comes to this, especially when all that is asked of commenters is that they be civil and accept logic as the basis of discussion.
If that needs clarification, by logic I mean the accepted methods of inductive and deductive logic - primarily deductive - as they are presented in college textbooks. This means that "I think I am logical" is NOT an acceptable approach to rational thinking. Nor is dodging questions, changing definitions, refusing to acknowledge logical errors (or worse, Special Pleading that they actually work fine for this particular case). Coversations can be impeded in a great many ways, because there are many types of falseness. In comparison, there is only one truth, the rest is not-truth (false). Impeding a conversation which is dedicated to finding that which is valid and that which is true, by asserting any and all manner of falseness, demanding that it be accepted, while not accepting either that the falseness shown to them applies to their assertion, or that the counter assertion is, in fact, within the bounds of logic, is merely obstructionism, not rational conversation. Such obstructionism will be pointed out, and then if it is not corrected, the offender will be banned.
If a commenter cannot even study logic enough to know what it actually is, and then insists on dominating discussions with absolute illogic, he is in jeopardy of losing his privileges here. Permanently.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Comment Moderation is ON
Amnesty was an experiment. It might still work for some commenters, but for one in particular, commenting is still not civil. So the blog will be moderated for the time being.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
General Amnesty
Anyone who wishes to comment here, may do so, including those previously removed from this blog. Please understand that the Rules of the Blog still pertain, and that civil behavior is expected and will be insisted upon.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Comments are Moderated
There are some things which cannot and should not be tolerated on a blog intended for civil discourse. I do not tolerate name-calling, for one thing. While I was gone there was a period where several Atheists showed their true selves. Calling me a liar and stupid is not civil discourse. I had had hope that the arguments being placed before I left would produce some sort of results which could be logically acceptable; but it apparently was too much to ask.
I will close this segment by addressing the issues of my "lying"; the Atheist accusers will not be allowed to respond because they have already made their case; after my response, the issue will be closed.
First the issue of me "lying" about PZ's request for emails from Atheists concerning the reasons for their Atheism: When I write "Why I am an Atheist", it is the same as "here are the reasons that I am an Atheist". The definition of "why" is this:
The second accusation is that I have lied and am too stupid to understand the complexities of the Atheist argument. This is the response to the logical faults and fallacies which I demonstrated to the argument being made. When logic is violated wilfully there is little anyone can respond to except the violations. If an argument does succeed in adhering to logical requirements, then one could proceed to ask what the probability of its being true might be. But if it contains violations of logical procedures, then there is nothing else to discuss, but those violations.
Now, it is entirely possible that I did not understand the series of words in the same sense in which the writer intended them to be understood. But words and sentences are the currency of intellectual transaction. When they can be seen, on their face, to contain errors, then what else can be done?
The default position for Atheists who are cornered seems always to be to resort to airs of superiority and ridicule, yet in the total absence of material or logical proof.
The final insults have been made. These two will have to complain about me elsewhere; their comments will no longer be accepted here.
UPDATE:
PZ has made this request update:
Then be patient.
[Emphasis added]
I will close this segment by addressing the issues of my "lying"; the Atheist accusers will not be allowed to respond because they have already made their case; after my response, the issue will be closed.
First the issue of me "lying" about PZ's request for emails from Atheists concerning the reasons for their Atheism: When I write "Why I am an Atheist", it is the same as "here are the reasons that I am an Atheist". The definition of "why" is this:
why,adv. 1. for what reason, cause, or purpose; with what motive; used interrogatively...Along with this, the issue of the Atheist's responses being merely anecdotes rather than logical responses, thereby excusing the Atheists for the lack of logic in their positions, has been brought as an accusation also. Should the Atheists not be held to their reasons? In many cases the Atheist has declared devotion to logic and rationality as an abstraction without so much as a clue as to what that actually entails in terms of disciplined adherence to an external standard. If logic is claimed, then one should be expected to have logical reasons. And in fact, many more of the responses detail emotional reasons for their Atheism, without any discussion of the need for, or use of, logic, and no apparent thought for logic at all.
The second accusation is that I have lied and am too stupid to understand the complexities of the Atheist argument. This is the response to the logical faults and fallacies which I demonstrated to the argument being made. When logic is violated wilfully there is little anyone can respond to except the violations. If an argument does succeed in adhering to logical requirements, then one could proceed to ask what the probability of its being true might be. But if it contains violations of logical procedures, then there is nothing else to discuss, but those violations.
Now, it is entirely possible that I did not understand the series of words in the same sense in which the writer intended them to be understood. But words and sentences are the currency of intellectual transaction. When they can be seen, on their face, to contain errors, then what else can be done?
The default position for Atheists who are cornered seems always to be to resort to airs of superiority and ridicule, yet in the total absence of material or logical proof.
The final insults have been made. These two will have to complain about me elsewhere; their comments will no longer be accepted here.
UPDATE:
PZ has made this request update:
Why are you an atheist?why you are an atheist, format it simply (just text is best, don’t get fancy on me so I have to fuss with it), and email it to pzmyers@gmail.com, and I’ll toss it into my special WIAAA folder.
December 17, 2011 at 8:35 am PZ Myers
I’m still getting submissions, and I’m still getting asked how to make a submission. It’s easy! Write an essay of whatever length moves you on
Then be patient.
[Emphasis added]
Monday, September 19, 2011
Commenter Removal
Another commenter has been removed from the blog. Some commenters are merely out to jerk chains and see how long they will be tolerated. Refusal to deal with logical criticism and adapt to logical discussions is an indicator of an individual's attitude of disruption and wastes the time of serious users of the blog. When these people show up and have been given adequate time to adjust, but refuse to, they are removed.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Rules of the Blog
This blog has been an open blog for most of its history. The intent of this forum is to provide civil discourse concerning Atheism, its validity, practices and any consequences that derive from Atheism, Philosophical Materialism, Science, General Philosophy, and more specifically Ethics. Also it is the intent of this blog to pursue rational thought, its logical underpinning, and the source of rationality in the universe and in ourselves. This necessarily includes science and its misuses.
Disruptive behavior will result in being banned from this blog. I am the arbiter of which behavior is disruptive. However, the term “civil discourse” covers most of the expectations for acceptable commenting behavior. But also included is the refusal to acknowledge fallacious thinking when it is pointed to, and to making unjustified accusations, rude or arrogant or personal attacks, obscenity, and probably a whole page full of other abrogations of civil discourse.
For most, this will be easily met. And I appreciate those who have, and continue to make thoughtful contributions here. My sincere thanks. Addendum: No comments from "anonymous" will be allowed. Choose a moniker; it's easy.
Disruptive behavior will result in being banned from this blog. I am the arbiter of which behavior is disruptive. However, the term “civil discourse” covers most of the expectations for acceptable commenting behavior. But also included is the refusal to acknowledge fallacious thinking when it is pointed to, and to making unjustified accusations, rude or arrogant or personal attacks, obscenity, and probably a whole page full of other abrogations of civil discourse.
For most, this will be easily met. And I appreciate those who have, and continue to make thoughtful contributions here. My sincere thanks. Addendum: No comments from "anonymous" will be allowed. Choose a moniker; it's easy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)