The Sick Mind of a Lone Christian

Someone sick lone individual is sending emails to people with mine and Daniel Morgan's return email addresses on them. Ed Babinski pointed it out to me because he received something that had the official look of coming from me, but it didn't come from me. Then on a different blog someone commented using my name who made statements to the effect that I was a homosexual pedophile, and by clicking on my name it takes a person to my blogger profile. I was alarmed at this and immediately denied that such a comment came from me, but my comment was deleted, leaving the other comment falsely attributed to me to stand.

Deleting my comment when I denied what that false impersonator wrote can be traced to the blog owner, and this is what I strongly object to and should be condemned even if the site is a parody of mine by a Christian. That blog owner is Paul Manata.

40 comments:

The Uncredible Hallq said...

If Frank really is responsible, best luck on stopping him.

Sandalstraps said...

There is no justification for that sort of fraudulent slander. I wonder if you can take some sort of legal action.

Of course, I don't agree with your world view, but whatever you do don't let bastards like that keep you from saying your peace. You keep the discussion honest.

paul said...

Bizarre.

If the person doing this considers him/herself to be a believer, I wonder how they came to the conclusion that it was Gods will to use such tactics? Not exactly "fighting evil with good," by any stretch of a twisted mind. This person must not have a very high regard for their God if they believe He needs such assistance.

Jon said...

John, I hope you will reconsider your new policy of not posting on any blog other than here at DC. Their goal is to shut all of us up. This would be a small victory for them. Your arguments are good and you're out there making quite a difference. This is why the ridicule towards you and obsession with you is ratcheted up a couple of notches. It's a great way to get people to throw up their hands and just say "forget it."

I get the some of the same treatment. Though of course not nearly to the degree you get it. I have long drawn out conversations with Jason Engwer. Of course I can't be certain, but I think he doesn't want me showing up to engage. So to accomplish that he usually sprinkles in a few ad hominem comments in the course of his post. He and Steve will talk about how I'm a laughable joke unprepared to debate, like a warrior that forgot his weapons, and I run away with my tail between my legs. And they slap each other on the back and yuck it up. That's a good way to get reasonable people to find something else to do with their time. So I have to wonder if that is the goal. It's the same for you. The ridicule hasn't worked so far. The constant dogging at your heals hasn't worked. The discomfiter decided to take it to a whole new level. Even that hasn't worked. So now we see this. I'm not saying I blame you, but you should understand that this is exactly how they want you to respond.

Maybe you could continue with comments but only post them anonymously. Never sign your name. That way nothing you post can technically be attributed to you, and likewise none of the lies that others post can be attributed to you.

Anonymous said...

Jon, thank you, but I do not post anonymously. If I post a comment I own up to it, unlike some other people. I can do business perfectly fine from here. If I see something I want to comment on, I'll just create a blog entry here.

Shining and Burning Light said...

John,

A little parody may be legitimate between opponents, but that Discomfiter stuff has gone way too far. Posting reprehensible comments under your name certainly is a low blow, and not worthy of a Christian (if a Christian brother really did this, he needs to publicly seek your forgiveness and repent. If not, I have doubts about the genuiness of his Christian profession). Well, I just wanted to say that because the mischievous kid stuff that's going on over there is bothering me, and I wanted to defend my Lord and my faith from that kind of behavior. I hope they cease and desist...

God bless

S&BL

webmdave said...

Hi John,

You still retain access to posting on ExChristian.Net, just in case you change your mind. You can hide from others what blogs you post to by changing the settings in your Blogger profile. I don't link up any bloggers' profiles on my site, except my own, partly for the very reasons you've cited. And, as far as comments are concerned, there is always the "other" button. You could just comment under a pseudonym; many people do just that. It's the ideas that matter.

Regardless, I agree with the poster above and would hate to see your thoughts confined because of an idiot.

Dave

Anonymous said...

I wish other Christians would do the same as Vic Reppert said here. Thanks Vic.

Anonymous said...

the simplest way to tell if a user is real or not is NOT by just checking to see if their name is present, and hyperlinked to their profile. after all, this is easy enough to do ... but I'd rather not divulge how.

the acid test to determine authenticity is if the profile avatar shows up as well. if you visit the profile and you see an avatar on the profile (like gene cook's goofy radio studio pic, or the green man's shadowy figure picture), but NOT on the comment...

you know you have a fake.

now, note that profile images only appear in the comments page, not in the little drop-down boxes to preview comments, like are installed here on this blog. but if you go to the comments post page, you will see the avatars of bloggers from their profiles (if they have one). the discomfiter's blog has this feature enabled, and here, so whenever a comment appears that seems odd just check to see if the person's profile image shows up on the comments page (click "post a comment" or "comment here" or whatever)

of course, not all blogs allow profile images to be displayed, so this will only work with a small subset of blogs. also, not all blogs allow anonymous comments, so this isn't a problem for all blogs.

Victor Reppert said...

One caveat John. It is probably not a good idea to accuse anyone of doing this unless you have real solid evidence that, say, Frank is your man. But I do wish you the best of luck in determining who might have done this, or at least to get it stopped.

Hellbound Alleee said...

Well, Damn the 9th commandment, eh? To whomever is up to such shenanagans, you're going to H E Double hockey sticks for that one.

But I'm pretty sure he has no idea what the 9th (traditional) commandment is. Probably because we can't *sniff* display it in public schools.

gwiman-1 said...

Well I was going to say something about that commandment but Hellbound beat me to it.

Hey Christian person, does this ring a bell?...

THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOR

Seems clear enough.

Aaron Kinney said...

Im a glass is half full kind of guy. I take this as a good sign overall for the atheist camp.

Why? Because it means that some theist out there has had to resort to ad hominem and literally and deliberately creating a straw man of you in an attempt to keep their faith intact within their own minds.

The only way for them to fight your arguments, in their own mind, is to recreate you as an evil person in the (illogical) logic that this takes credit from your actual arguments.

Whatever you are doing Loftus, you are doing it right. This is a sign from the heavens (LOLOL) to keep at it!

Error said...

What proof do you have that it was a theist? I expect you to be just as hard on yourself as you are on theists. That is, give us the PROOF of your assertion.

Why should we believe you?

Also, care to comment on this: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/08/cry-baby-atheism.html#comments

FWIW, I *did not* do that to you, if it was done, and I would not.

Anonymous said...

Paul, as I was just about to leave on vacation I thought I'd check my blog one last time, and I am shocked that someone did the same thing to you as they did to me. I do not know who is doing this, but it may be someone who is trying to cause additional problems between us by pouring gasoline on the fires of our debates. I think that if everyone disallowed anonymous comments such things cannot be done, but I may be wrong. At least I haven't seen anyone do it here at DC. I do wish you well. All I have ever wanted was a reasonable discussion between people who respected each other as thinking human beings. And I still do.

And since I no longer know whether it is a theist or an atheist or someone in between I'll revise this post.

DagoodS said...

Paul Manata,

Since I stuck my nose in this situation, I may as well complete my thoughts. Three points:

1) It is nice to see you posting here. Even a link to a response is very helpful. I wish that other posters would do the same.

2) You indicate that The Discomfiter did nothing wrong. You imply that all he did was blog, and have a comments section. If some malicious individual chose to post something, how is The Discomfiter to blame for that?

You, and others keep missing the second post. The one that the real John W. Loftus posted. The one that The Discomfiter deleted. It was THAT action that raises suspicion, and was arguably wrong.

I would agree that simply because a person makes a comment on a blog, the blogger is not responsible to either delete, or not delete it. That the blogger has little control over what others write. Some blogs are stringent on what they allow, some allow “anything goes.”

It was news to me that someone could post using another person’s blogger name linking to their profile, and I could not blame a blogger for not knowing that either.

But when John W. Loftus posted a comment saying, “Hey, that was not me.” And THAT comment is deleted, it makes The Discomfiter involved in the action. S/he can no longer stand by the sidelines and say, “I can’t help who posts and who doesn’t.” Not when The Discomfiter is EXACTLY deciding who posts and who doesn’t by deleting posts.

Do you agree that deleting John W. Lofus’ second post was not wrong?

If anyone has been following this sordid saga, one point has become shiningly clear. We keep pointing out the problem of the deletion of this second post, and it keeps getting ignored. You are too astute for it to be inadvertent. It would appear that you, too, are uncomfortable with this action, and therefore choose to ignore it rather than address it.

The Discomfiter was asked, “1) Did you leave the false post and 2) Did you delete John’s second post denying writing the false post?”

As to the first question, “Did you leave the false post?” The Discomfiter replied, “Yes I left *Johns* comment on there.” As to the second question, “Did you delete John’s attempt to correct the situation?” The Discomfiter replied, “Lets not dwell on this.”

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/08/secular-fundy-literalism.html#comments
We have asked, directly and repeatedly, the justification for deleting that second post, and it has been unanswered. Repeatedly.

Do you agree that deleting John W. Lofus’ second post was not wrong?

3) Your defense of this matter can be apparently summed up as “You do it, too.” You indicate numerous situations in which you believe atheists committed the same action. Although I see a difference, personally, in making it one-sided by deleting comments, I’ll follow your argument.

So what you appear to be saying is that Christians are no different from atheists, who are no different from Christians. Haven’t you lost the forest for the trees in this defense?

Sure, it provides a response to this minor incident, but in the big picture, this is exactly what we are saying—there is no difference between a Christian and a non-Christian. Some Christians are whiney, some non-Christians are whiney. Some Christians do bad acts, some non-Christians do bad acts.

One person who has gained quite a bit of my respect is Shining and Burning Light. At least they have been willing to step forward, and say, “This is not right.” Unfortunately for Shining and Burning Light, we had a long (LONG) discussion about whether the differences between Christians and non-Christians are evident, which you just completely undercut by defending The Discomfiter with “You do it too” defense.

Aren’t you supposed to be better than me, Paul Manata? I presume from our past discussions in which you disgorge doubt about my ever being a Christian in the first place, you certainly agree with me that I am not a Christian now. I should not exhibit the fruits of the spirit, whereas Christians should. Would you say that The Discomfiter’s actions, and your defense of them display temperance, patience, peace, gentleness, meekness and goodness? (Gal. 5:22-23)

Understand, I am not attempting to place anyone on a guilt trip. What I see are humans acting like humans. You claim we are internally inconsistent because we do not police and monitor atheists like we do Christians, yet I see the same from you. I see an internal inconsistency in Christianity in that it claims Christians should be markedly different, yet defend their comparative actions with “You do it too.”

Pot, meet kettle. Which is what we would expect if there is no real divine difference between a believer and non-believer.

Error said...

That was a long post and I'd read Steve's latest post.

You have no foundation for ethics, so you have no business having a problem with this, other than your opinion.

Second, I *do* have precidence for this in the Bible, as even S&BL has agreed. Unbelievers always point to how God treated other people, and how Jesus was for slavery, and how mean they all were, but if I act "mean" (iun yoru eyes) then I'm "unchristian." Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Now, on to the second post. Here's my thoughts:

I talked to the discomfiter and this is what he said

1. "I thought John REALLY DID leave the first post since I had no idea someone could fake Blogger IDs.

2. "Then, I thought he was playing games, trying to take down the discomfiter, and so I deleted his second post to beat him at his own game."

3. "Once the problem became more heated, since I thought John was just playing around I wasn't worried, I deleted the comment."

4. "Even though I did delete it, I still feel that it was either Loftus or Babinski. I think this was their way to take me down because you must admit, I was embarrassing Loftus."


So now Dagoods, I think you can see that the discomfiter had no fault when he deleted the comment. If it was not John then he should have, but he thought, given the circumstances of his blog, that it was John Loftus. And now youi have your answer why the second post was deleted.

Finally, there is no pot kettle thing. I am a sinner and am not perfect. So, I don't try to pretend like I am.

Shining and Burning Light said...

Hi Dagoods,

Although my argumentation from that post you referenced above didn't persuade you, I hope my actions did....

Peace,

S&BL

bobingersoll said...

paul manata said; "Unbelievers always point to how God treated other people, and how Jesus was for slavery, and how mean they all were, but if I act "mean" (iun yoru eyes) then I'm "unchristian." Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too." Actually, I think your behavior is very Christian. I am never surprised by the actions and attitudes of believers. It is your own fellow Christians who will tell you that your behavior is "unchristian".

Matthew said...

Paul,

"You have no foundation for ethics, so you have no business having a problem with this, other than your opinion."

Geez, Paul! How self-righteous can people like you get? You remind me of that jackass creationist Jonathan Sarfati who demonizes those who disagree with him. You cannot simply and respectfully disagree with us, you also have to poison the wells and paint us nonChristians as moral reprobates because it seems to you we have no foundation for morality.

You know, Christians like you and Jason Engwer disgust me. You guys are so full of yourselves. You know something Paul- if there was an eternity with Christ to be spent, YOU personally would be the last kind of Christian I could ever want to spend eterinity with. I would rather spend eternity in the hottest pits of Hell than with someone I consider an arrogant creep like you!

Matthew

Heidi said...

Hi. My dog "Zack" was a frequent poster over at Discomfiting. I just wanted to say that when I read that comment – though I judged it tacky and unnecessary and was not amused-- I did not for an instant take it for anything more than a off joke, no matter whom it was written by. (And there have been plenty of those written by atheists so far.) Most people read the blog because it was hilarious. No matter how well 'Big D' discomited 'Christianity' in other respects, most people would not keep returning if it didn't also make us fall off their chairs laughing (and Big D wouldn't have discomfited nearly so well without his knack for laughing up the ridiculous). When my internet was up I checked in there frequently, though I hardly ever read 'serious' blogs (I find books better for that), precisely because I like to laugh. I think most of the comments reflected that attitude, except for a few people who didn't know how to take a joke.

Just to say that I don't think anyone took that comment seriously; that those of us who have a sense of humor knew that comment wasn't even very amusing, and that I believe Mr. Loftus' reputation is perfectly safe with any person of normal intelligence.

"Zack" probably should have said something disagreeable about that nasty comment, but he's a dog... however I apologize in his behalf for that oversight.

DagoodS said...

Paul Manata,

I have been struggling with a diplomatic way to say this. But no, I do not agree that The Discomfiter was in the right. I find his/her defense of deleting that post disingenuous and most definitely with some fault.

I could list out the many reasons I am convinced of that, (and perhaps my profession is making me more cynical in this regard) however the point is moot, now that The Discomfiter is no longer posting.

If you (or anyone) feels it necessary I provide support for my reasons, I will list them out on request.

The Uncredible Hallq said...

Paul Manat said:

You have no foundation for ethics, so you have no business having a problem with this, other than your opinion.

Dear Paul--

I don't know of a nice way to say this, so I'll be blunt: you are slime. When other people are trying to hold up a bare minimum of sane conduct, you impede it in a lame attempt to win an argument that ought to have been put temporarily on hold.

I sincerely hope this comments snaps you out of the strange little world you live in, even though I know it probably won't.

Aaron Kinney said...

Good news, guys:

So Long, Satire!

:)

Error said...

Yeah Dagoods, if the discomfiter thought that BOTH posts were from Loftus, and if he thought that LOFTUS was playing a game, and if he THOUGHT that one COULD NOT fake Blogger IDs, then I find no fault in what he did.

But, I don't care about your reasons and I don't care if you think he was wrong. Actually, I'm still of the opinion that it was Loftus or Babinski who did that, so if I'm correct then the discomfiter was in the right.

You can say he says he didn't all you want, and no, I can't prove it, but it's a strongly held opinion.

Anyway, thanks for convincing me that atheists are a bunch of cry babies.

You guys NEVER showed up and complained when Jesus, Steve, Josh, Paul, et al. where told some pretty sick things, but when someone said something about Loftus you made a HUGE deal out of it. And, that is more evidence that it was your guys' doing.

Anyway, if what I said about the discomfiter is true, then he had no fault.

I mean, *if* you thought I was joking about something then, even if I wasn't, why would *you* have bad motives, or be immoral? Especially if you had *good reason*, at the time, to think I was joking? You wouldn't.

Anyway, you guys are baby whiners, that's all Inhave to say about it.

DagoodS said...

Paul Manata:

I mean, *if* you thought I was joking about something then, even if I wasn't, why would *you* have bad motives, or be immoral?

How can you ask that of a person who has no foundation for their ethics? *wink*

Unfortunately, in this area, you asked the wrong atheist this question. REGARDLESS of what I felt, or what I thought my motives were, I would apologize. Because I am very cognizant that what is more important is what the other person thinks, not some justification of how I feel.

I have a history of doing so.

Can you say the same? Can you say that you are more concerned about how the other person feels, rather than justification of your own actions, even if you think your own actions are correct? Have you seen me insist that it must be my way or the highway? Or, rather, in order to not offend, have I genuinely apologized; realizing that what is more important is how the other person took my words, rather than my intention in saying them?

How many times have you apologized to an atheist for taking your words the wrong way?

I was the wrong atheist for that question, my friend.

As far as I am aware, Josh, Jesus, Paul, Steve, etc. could defend themselves against any strong statements said against them WITHOUT having their defense deleted.

Are you claiming that you attempted to defend yourself and the post was deleted? That would make a more interesting discussion.

I am unclear as to how an atheist (myself) taking strong exception to another atheist being falsely claimed to make a statement that he was a pedophile is evidence that the atheist made the original claim. Can you clarify that?

Aaron Kinney said...

Paul,

Dont forget that an atheist (me) convinced another atheist (Brother Blark) to stop his satire as well.

Error said...

Sorry Dagoods, you're not going to win this one.

"REGARDLESS of what I felt, or what I thought my motives were, I would apologize. Because I am very cognizant that what is more important is what the other person thinks, not some justification of how I feel."

Okay, so all you're saying is what *you* would do. how does that make the discomfiter wrong? Or, is there some universal standard here? *wink.*

Anyway, it appears that you think the people who didn't believe the boy who cried wolf were wrong.

If you have good reason to believe someone is joking, and that they are playing around with everyone else, then what's the problem? There is none.

Anyway there's nothing to discuss because you started out saying that the discomfiter was wrong, but now we see that you just mean that he didn't do what you would. Big deal. I probably wouldn't eat the same kind of cereal you did either, that means I'm immoral?



Aaron,

That's fine. I had no problem with the discomfiter, he did nothing wrong, you're not the authority who gets to say when someone's had enough, PLENTY of Christians, the ones to whom the site was dedicated, still enjoyed it, people still thought it was funny, the discomfiter got emails every day from friends saying how funny it was, the Tweb folks laughed, the folks in the unchained discussion board all thought it was funny, your suggestion was totally unconsidered.

From what I hear, the discomfiter had other reasons for shutting down and only it went *exactly* how many posts he intended it to. It was not cut short *one minute* because of anything that happened, whining aside.


Anyway, Dagoods, let's see how consistent you are, okay. Time to put your money where your mouth is, okay. There is NO proof that it was "a Christian" who did this, yet your site here blames this on a Christian.

Now, why would you guys do this without proof?

it looks to many that it was an atheist plant, probably Loftus or Babinski, who did it to then blame Christians for their "un-Christian" behavior. If you're so in to not blaming people without evidence, then why don't you guys take down that it was a Christain who did this?

Hiraeth said...

John, might I suggest that you get a little picture to go with your name. That way, everyone can tell if the comment's from you or not, as there is, to the best of my knowledge no way of completely cloning a blogger ID.

Hiraeth said...

Oh, and on the culprit, I, with my Sherlock Holmes-like mind can tell you for 99% certain that the person was one of the anonymous personages who started posting after the books entry.

Almost certainly a pimply-type out to make trounble.

DagoodS said...

Paul Manata,

Win what? I desired an explanation. After repeated questions and avoidance, eventually The Discomfiter’s actions were defended with “You do it too!”

I pointed out how that undercuts a previous debate (with another Christian) that Christians are any different than atheists.

You might also note that I did not start asking until other Christians indicated that, with their foundational ethics in Christianity, they ALSO thought it was wrong. I then asked on poster at Triablogue whether he agreed, and he agreed that the false post should be deleted.

Yet it was not. (At that time)

Regardless of my ethics, if one Christian tells another Christian they did something wrong, isn’t it prudent of me to inquire as to how the same ethical basis comes up with two different answers?

I am a bit surprised that your foundational ethics equates eating cereal to making a false statement intoning a person is a pedophile. (While The Discomfiter may not have made the statement, he promulgated it, and was implicitly involved in it remaining.)

As to the joking, I think Proverbs says it best: “Like a madman shooting firebrands or deadly arrows is a man who deceives his neighbor and says, ‘I was only joking.’” (26:18-19)

Finally as to “proof.” Remember, in my vernacular, “proof” is just a set of evidences that leads one to a conclusion.

The fact that The Discomfiter is well-known and communicates with Triabloguers, gets e-mails of encouragement from Christians, would not curse Jesus and makes a parody site all lead me to believe that The Discomfiter is a Christian. You know this person. Am I wrong?

Now, The Discomfiter has admitted that s/he deleted that second post from John W. Loftus.

How much more “proof” do I need that a Christian did it?

True, I do not have absolute proof. It is possible The Discomfiter is a non-believer. It is possible that you were either misinformed, or that you were inaccurate when you indicated The Discomfiter deleted that second post.

Am I to rely on your being not credible which would preclude me from having “absolute proof”? Curious indeed!

If I have to go through life with thoughts of “Well, I think Paul Manata is not telling the truth, therefore I am barred from having absolute proof” this discussion will get nowhere. I believed you when you indicated The Discomfiter deleted that correction post. Was I not supposed to?

I presume, though, that you are talking about the original false post, rather than the deletion—(why IS it that the fact I find the deletion of the second post more important always trivialized? Hmmm.)

There are plenty of evidences that would make it more likely that the false post was done by a Christian.

It was on a parody of an atheist site. Typically, posts that trash atheists on that site were by Christians. It was a post designed to harm, not help John W. Loftus. A Christian (presuming The Discomfiter is a Christian) deleted a comment designed to correct the situation.

I see no motivation for an atheist to do it.

If, as you say, it was done to demonstrate “un-Christian” like behavior, I am uncertain as to how that could have been planned. Sure, that is what turned out, but that is 20-20 hindsight.

Most likely, The Discomfiter, after John W. Loftus stated it was not he, would delete both posts. Demonstrating a most Christian attitude and foiling this supposed plot.

Or, after Loftus posted this blog entry, The Discomfiter would, again, delete the post, again, foiling this plot.

You really think that atheists have to go to such extra-ordinary lengths to demonstrate that Christians do not exhibit Christ-like behavior? We see it all the time, we CERTAINLY need not manufacture the situation—sadly Christians seem to do so quite nicely on their own.

Like The Discomfiter refusing to admit s/he was wrong, or apologizing, or in deleting that second post.

There is enough evidence to demonstrate (unfortunately, in my opinion) that it was a Christian, and I see no motivation whatsoever that an atheist would do it. No need, no motivation, no gain.

But hey, if you don’t believe me, that’s fine. You don’t care about my reasons, and you don’t care if I think The Discomfiter was wrong.

Error said...

Dagoods,

Your party spirit is evident.


"Win what? I desired an explanation. After repeated questions and avoidance, eventually The Discomfiter’s actions were defended with “You do it too!”

No, the response is this: The discomfiter was pretty sure that it was Loftus or Babinski, therefore Loftus doesn't get his own post deleted when he's the one who put it up. You can't beat that, Dagoods.


"Regardless of my ethics, if one Christian tells another Christian they did something wrong, isn’t it prudent of me to inquire as to how the same ethical basis comes up with two different answers?"

That was predicated upon the belief that Loftus orBabinski (maybe even you) *did not* post that. I bet if you re-phrase the question they would not have a problem with Loftus' own post being allowed to remain, afterall, he's the one who posted it.

"I am a bit surprised that your foundational ethics equates eating cereal to making a false statement intoning a person is a pedophile. (While The Discomfiter may not have made the statement, he promulgated it, and was implicitly involved in it remaining.)"

You can't be this dense, can you? Your argument that it was wrong is based on your opionion. I gane you an internal critique. Second, you're assuming that it was done by someone else and not Loftus or Babinski.

Again, from the Discomfiter's position, he was involved in keeping what he took to be JOHN LOFTUS' statement up there. You seem totally unable to grasp this basic point. tell me why the Discomfiter should feel morally obligated to remove a post John Loftus made about himself?

"The fact that The Discomfiter is well-known and communicates with Triabloguers, gets e-mails of encouragement from Christians, would not curse Jesus and makes a parody site all lead me to believe that The Discomfiter is a Christian. You know this person. Am I wrong?"

Okay, so the discomfiter is a Christian, how does that prove the one who posted under Loftus' name was a Christain? it doesn't, law dog.

I can also tell you this with 100% certainty. The discomfiter didn't knowm how to post under people's names like that until after this even took place! Therefore, I know that it was IMPOSSIBLE that it was the Discomfiter. Since that is the case you cannot move to the position that it was a Christian who did it. I'll deal with your weak evidence below.

"Now, The Discomfiter has admitted that s/he deleted that second post from John W. Loftus.

How much more “proof” do I need that a Christian did it?"

You have got to be kidding me!!!

The Discomfiter did not admit that, it was assumed since it was his blog and only he can delete comments. But, he never "admitted" it.

And, show the connection between:

The discomfiter deleted one of John's comments, but not the other, therefore a Christian made the pedaphile comment.

Show the connection. Look, this debate is going how ALL my debates with atheists go... poorly for the atheist.


"True, I do not have absolute proof. It is possible The Discomfiter is a non-believer. It is possible that you were either misinformed, or that you were inaccurate when you indicated The Discomfiter deleted that second post."

You don't have ANY proof, you have conjecture, ignorant conjecture.

"why IS it that the fact I find the deletion of the second post more important always trivialized? Hmmm."

Why is the fact that the discomfiter thought John Loftus was playing a game, and John Loftus posted *BOTH* of the comments, trivialized? Hmmmm. Based on the discomfiter's *belief* he did nothing wrong. Furthermore, based on his evidence, his belief has a higher degree of probability that yours does, especially since I know, for a fact, that your belief that the D possibly did it, is false!


"There are plenty of evidences that would make it more likely that the false post was done by a Christian.

It was on a parody of an atheist site. Typically, posts that trash atheists on that site were by Christians. It was a post designed to harm, not help John W. Loftus. A Christian (presuming The Discomfiter is a Christian) deleted a comment designed to correct the situation."

Uhhh, wake up Dagoods. This isn't "evidence" these are *assertions.*

It was a post designed to bring the discomfiters blog into disrepute.

The D deleted what he thought was John Loftus false correction post, but left John Loftus' stupid self-debasing post up, so it would backfire in John's face.

The ONLY comments on the blog (other than the one in question) where people talked about dirty sexual things, were posts done by atheists!!!!!! They were homosexual jokes telling Paul Manata and Josh Brisby and Gene Cook to stop doing sexual acts to eachother.

Further, when the atheists hi-jacked my name on T-blog, their comments were homosexual ones as well!

Now, the Loftus post was a dirty one which brough up homosexuality!

Therefore, i feel I have made a very strong inductive case that it was probably an atheist who did it, and not a Christain.

The Christian's posts to John were more intellectually demeaning, the atheists were many times sexual.


"I see no motivation for an atheist to do it."

I see no reason for a Christian to do it.

C'mon, is this the best you got?

Here;s a reason I see. John Loftus was EMBARRASSED by the discomfiter's blog. It was making him and atheism look STUPID. He tried to say it should be shut down on more than one occasion.

Babinsky was upset, he even called the discomfiter "gay" (hmmm. another homosexual reference!).

So, if the blog had possible legal threats against it (hmmmm, Daniel Morgan and Walton), there would be a possibility that the discomfiter would shut it down.

This would accomplish the goal of stopping the embarrassment of Loftus and the making him look even more foolish than he looks already.

So, I've done WAY better at presenting a case than you have.

If we were opposing lawyers here, I'd win the jury and you'd be begging me to offer you a plea.

"Most likely, The Discomfiter, after John W. Loftus stated it was not he, would delete both posts. Demonstrating a most Christian attitude and foiling this supposed plot."

More Likely, the discomfiter would allow John's post where he calls himself gay and a pedophile to saty up so that John would learn not to be so stupid.

Anyway, why was John's post that it was not him who said that apear very close to the one that was written? Hmmm. And, why would John have noticed it? John had sad the discomfiter's site was stupid and that he was going to ignore it. But he was obviously invo9lved enough to not only read the main posts, but also the comments section!

Does this make John into a liar? Why did he say he was going to "ignore" the discomfiter only to read the posts and comments section of the discomfiters blog?? If it does, then why believe that John's telling the truth that he didn't want to thwart a blog which was making him look foolish and causing people to laugh at him? Do you like people to laugh at you? Would you want the person stopped who was making people laugh at you? Heck, even atheists commented in that blog and said John's arguments were bad and that he was small fries. They asked why people would waste their time on Him?

"You really think that atheists have to go to such extra-ordinary lengths to demonstrate that Christians do not exhibit Christ-like behavior? We see it all the time, we CERTAINLY need not manufacture the situation—sadly Christians seem to do so quite nicely on their own."

No, I think that Loftus or Babinski would go to such lengths to get the discomfiter to stop doing what he was doing, or to bring his blog into disrepute, causing less peopel to read it and also cause more people to focus on "the mean discomfiter" rather than John's stupid arguments.

"There is enough evidence to demonstrate (unfortunately, in my opinion) that it was a Christian, and I see no motivation whatsoever that an atheist would do it. No need, no motivation, no gain."

Well, give the evidence. So far I blew your case out of the water. You're dead.

I see plenty of motive for an atheist to do it, PLENTY.

Anyway, now you see why people always told me I should be a lawyer.

Ta ta for now.

My case is much stronger, I rest my case. A joury would let the doscomfiter off the hook, your client would be indicted on charges. Buh-by now.

Error said...

p.s. the fact that you aren't telling Loftus to change the title of this post is just about enough proof that I need to see your integrity in this case.

The fact that you have no problem blaming this on Christians (without any real evidence, other than your paranoid conjecture, and in spite of my devastating counter evidence) is a testament to how serious you should be taken above.

Just thought I'd let you know that.

DagoodS said...

Paul Manata,

For someone who doesn’t care about my reasons you spend an inordinate amount of time addressing them. For someone who doesn’t care whether I think The Discomfiter is wrong, you certainly seem insistent that I must not think s/he was wrong.

You appear demanding that I request John W. Loftus to change this blog entry. Having read it, and re-read it (in its present form) I do not see anything that I object to. I understand, that with the evidence you review, you have a “strongly held opinion” that either Loftus or Babinski posted that first comment, and therefore the accusation of it being a Christian must be wrong. I am uncertain as to how your “strongly held opinion” must equate to my writing a rebuttal to Loftus.

I am sure there are many items in which you and I disagree. This just happens to be one of them.

You seem upset that there is no “absolute proof” that it was a Christian that wrote the first, offensive comment. Yet we all make statements which we do not have “absolute proof” but based on the evidence and our life experiences we make with positive assertion.

For example, you state that you can say with 100% certainty that The Discomfiter did not know how to post under another person’s identity. But how can you know that, unless you were The Discomfiter himself? Oh, you may have heard from The Discomfiter, or may have viewed The Discomfiter’s reactions, or may have some insight which we are unaware, but with all that being said, it is possible The Discomfiter is lying, and knew how.

(Note, with what little information I have, I, too, do not believe The Discomfiter knew how to do that. But s/he may have known who did, very shortly thereafter. I simply don’t know. I am pointing this out that if we require “absolute proof” before we say anything, we will never say anything.)

You (and The Discomfiter) believe that John W. Loftus is not truthful about the entry of these comments. Yet your belief in this regard does not translate over that I, too, must make the same conclusion.

Frankly, your argument as to the motivation of an atheist to do this is still very unpersuasive to me. (But you don’t care, right? *wink*)

Look. Let’s say I want to either have you close your blog, or paint you as unchristian. What you are claiming is that I first post a comment in which I claim to be a pedophile. Then I post a second comment saying the first comment was not me, but someone disguised as me.

How will this close your blog, or paint you as unchristian, might I ask? That makes no sense. I would expect one of three actions to take place:

1) Both comments are deleted as a conservative safety factor.
2) Both comments remain and are ignored.
3) Both comments remain, and I get ridiculed for talking out of both sides of my mouth.
4) It is pointed out that I am attempting to close your blog, or paint you as unchristian.

None of those options would ever cause your blog to close, nor paint you as unchristian. Especially 1, 2 or 4.

What, exactly, do you propose was to be the mechanism by posting these two comments by which The Discomfiter blog would have to close, or s/he would be demonstrated as unchristian?

I, frankly, wouldn’t predict you would delete my second comment, but assuming I somehow did.

Now what will be the next step in my nefarious plan? According to the scheme presented here, to make a blog entry on my blog as to how someone at Paul Manata’s blog was using my identity and posting something false.

What would be your next step? Again, I (personally) would presume that you would either re-institute the second deleted post (thus defeating my blog entry) or delete the first false post (thus defeating my blog entry) or write a blog entry that you suspect I wrote the first false post, but to be safe you will delete both (thus defeating my blog entry) or write a blog entry (swallowing your pride) that you were wrong to delete the second comment, give the reasons as stated here, and apologize (not only defeating my blog entry, but send a spear into the very heart of my plan, making you look more like a Christian, and me more like a fool.)

See, Paul Manata, the problem with an atheist doing this to discredit the blog is that there are too many variables, too many opportunities for The Discomfiter to come out smelling like a rose. Too much left to chance.

I just don’t see how someone could predict The Discomfiter would delete that second post, and not correct the situation. I certainly don’t see how it would shut down a blog!

Perhaps it is possible, but it is stretch enough to me that I find it unpersuasive.

Ironically, The Discomfiter could still write such a blog entry, and keep blogging. People’s memories are shot. Most have already forgotten this minor blog-war among millions that occurred last week alone.

Finally, you have started to wander all over the place regarding the deletion of that second post. When I indicated The Discomfiter admitted deleting the second post, you indicated:

The Discomfiter did not admit that, it was assumed since it was his blog and only he can delete comments. But, he never "admitted" it.

If you look at your previous comments in this blog entry, you stated:

I talked to the discomfiter and this is what he said…"Then, I thought he was playing games, trying to take down the discomfiter, and so I deleted his second post to beat him at his own game."

You put 4 items in quotes. Am I now to presume that you did NOT talk to The Discomfiter, or that these are NOT exact quotes? If so, what parts of the four quotes are NOT The Discomfiter’s exact words? What part of what you claim is justification for what The Discomfiter did should I not rely upon as something The Discomfiter said?

Which is it—Did The Discomfiter admit deleting that second post or not? Either way, one of your comments is most inaccurate.

Humorously, after chiding me for claiming The Discomfiter admitted deleting that second post, you go on to state:

The D deleted what he thought was John Loftus false correction post, but left John Loftus' stupid self-debasing post up, so it would backfire in John's face.

Thank you for making my point. The Discomfiter thought the second post was false? If The Discomfiter did not know that people could post under another identity, how could they possibly presume the SECOND post was false?

Further, look at the motivation here. Remember, we are talking about whether what The Discomfiter did was wrong. You emphasize it by indicating The Discomfiter took deliberate action (deleting that second post) with ill intent (that it would “backfire” in John’s face.)

S/he didn’t do it because they thought John was having fun. Not because they thought John was trying to “bring down the blog” or “paint them as unchristian.” They did it deliberately so as to “beat John at his own game.”

Only it turns out, John was NOT playing a game. Turns out it backfired in The Discomfiter’s face.

Only after a few Christians started to indicate that leaving that first comment and deleting the second was in poor taste, did The Discomfiter take it down.

Nice to see you commenting here again, Paul Manata. You have already indicated before, on numerous occasions, that you believe I have no integrity, nor that you take me seriously. You do not care what my reasons are, you do not care what I think is wrong, according to you I have no foundation for my ethics, and this is the equivalent of complaining about what breakfast cereal someone eats.

Your saying it again was not a real surprise, actually.

We have differing opinions on the events and motivations of the individuals involved. So be it.

Error said...

That was a watse of time, now wasn't it?

I gave an *inductive* argument above.

You did not address it, at all. You blew it moff as my opinion.

You mentioned your evidence, again, but have not yet given it. You wax about what benefit an atheist would have gained from doing it. But my evidence was given to show who probably did it.

Indeed, look all over the internet. When Christians cut people down, name call, etc., they *never* use sexual refernces. This is *common place* with atheists. Indeed, look on many agtheist discussion boards and see that when they disagree with someone they name call with sexual cut downs. Yes, indeed, internetinfidels even has a "sex forum" where people use all sorts of foul sexual language.

Anyway, I don't need to waste my time anymore. I've given my argument, any who read the thread can see that I have argued, you've tried to make the jury ignore it by hand waving, but we're not buying it Danny.

And, yes, I can know for 100% because I was the discomfiter.

I have nothing else to say. I gave an inductive argument, you gave nothing. typical.

Error said...

Oh, ps

"…"Then, I thought he was playing games, trying to take down the discomfiter, and so I deleted his second post to beat him at his own game."


"Which is it—Did The Discomfiter admit deleting that second post or not? Either way, one of your comments is most inaccurate."

Or, it could be missing context. I thought you said the D said, ON HIS BLOG, that he deleted the post.

No, he said it in *this* comments section since he was me. But, he did not admit to doing it on his *own* comments section.

Anyway, miscommunication there.

Bottom line, ifyou don't care about this, why not just admit your case is lost, the discofiter did not do anything wrong, and be done with it. Everyone already knows you lost your case.

Error said...

ps again,

"Thank you for making my point. The Discomfiter thought the second post was false? If The Discomfiter did not know that people could post under another identity, how could they possibly presume the SECOND post was false?"

No he didn't. He's saying "false" *at this point* in the game because that's what we're calling it. He still believes it was Loftus, Babinski, or another atheist.

Quit grasping at straws. You've lost. Typing a lot does not make your case stronger.

Error said...

another p.s.

"Further, look at the motivation here. Remember, we are talking about whether what The Discomfiter did was wrong. You emphasize it by indicating The Discomfiter took deliberate action (deleting that second post) with ill intent (that it would “backfire” in John’s face.)

S/he didn’t do it because they thought John was having fun. Not because they thought John was trying to “bring down the blog” or “paint them as unchristian.” They did it deliberately so as to “beat John at his own game.”

So, the D was not wrong. It's not immoral to "beat John at his own game." And, who says John can't have fun trying to bring down the D?


"Only it turns out, John was NOT playing a game. Turns out it backfired in The Discomfiter’s face."

That's up for debate.

And, John probably didn't know the secodn post would be deleted but I bet he assumed that the first would be allowed to stay, thus allowing him to throw his temper tantrum.


Anyway, nothing backfired in the Ds face, but I'm glad you think it did. is that because that was the atheist motive? Freudian slip?

"Only after a few Christians started to indicate that leaving that first comment and deleting the second was in poor taste, did The Discomfiter take it down."

Since I was the D I can tell you that this is not true.

Also, this is post hoc ergo procter hoc. All you saw was that *after* people copmpaliend he took it down, therefore it was *because* the complaining.

I bet you think roosters cause the sun to come up.

We do have differing opinions. The problem is that mine were backed by pretty interesting arguments, yours were not.

Glad to see you tell everyone it's an OPINION of yours, though. Since when did people get morally idicted because of another's OPINION?

So, on every front you lost, can we just admit it dagoods?

nsfl said...

Paul,

Why don't you calm down and take the time to compose one thoughtful response, rather than give in to impetuous, rambling, and somewhat incoherent rejoinders?

Look, I don't care that you fibbed when I asked you directly if it was you. If anyone should be "morally indicted" here, I would be the prosecuting attorney before your grand jury. But I don't care. Why? Because it was a harmless white lie. Let's just move on.

You would do much better just to let all of this go, as it seems, contrary to your assertions to the otherwise, that you are concerned with justifying yourself to those who you consider without a rational basis to accuse you of wrongdoing. You seem kind of desperate to do so, actually.

Christianity isn't false because of Paul Manata, it is false in spite of him. Next topic...

Edwardtbabinski said...

I sent a thoughtful response to Triablogue recently. Here is what I sent them:

Apparently your article on the subject of "Cry Baby Atheism" is flawed because you have not included prior statements made by Manata to which Loftus and others were expressing their verbal outrage.

In my own case, allow me to present the evidence along with elucidating my response:

THE DISCOMFITER'S SELF-DESCRIPTION IN HIS BLOGGER PROFILE:

Industry: Fashion
Occupation: Interior Decorating

Interests
Refuting Christians, reading John Loftus' blogs and books, and remodeling Tuscan style villas


EDWARD T. BABINSKI'S COMMENTS BASED ON THE DISCOMFITER'S SELF-DESCRIPTION ABOVE:

To the "gay atheist" blog owner of Discomfiting Christianity [I put the words "gay atheist" in quotation marks because I did not believe the Discomfiter was "gay" nor an "atheist" but I did perceive him to be poking fun at BOTH gays and atheists.--E.T.B.]:

I suggest dropping the balpeen-hammer hints that homosexuals [and atheists--E.T.B.] are worthy of derision, and also suggest you leave sarcasm to the experts [experts whom I proceeded to name--E.T.B.]

I also spoke to Vic about the faked Loftus blogger comment because Vic runs a blog and would not want people to sign in and add comments using another person's blogger I.D. so I told Vic to cease allowing anonymous comments which could lead to such abuse of blogger identities.