Stormbringer's Hypocrisy

     Stormbringer has decided to do a post about lying. Well, it does seem to be his field of expertise. I thought I'd like to compare his judgements against his actions.
     "Assigning a motive. You don't know what is in someone's heart or mind 'on the fly.'"
     Stormbringer, himself, has assigned to myself and other dissenters the motive of "being filled with hate." When he sees others assign motives, he announces it as lying. Now, for me, it's a harder call. Someone is only lying if he does not believe his own claims. If he really believes what he says (which I do not think is the case with Stormbringer) he is only mistaken -- or, if correct, telling the truth.
     "Putting words into someone's mouth. This can be tricky, too. One one hand, there is the 'Ray is a homophobe,' a complete and deliberate misrepresentation of the contents of the article. The other way is to quote a line in question and saying, 'This seems homophobic to me.'"
     This is a horrible attempt to produce an example to demonstrate his claim. What he has actually given an example of is someone making a judgement. Here's a better example (read: an actual example) of putting words in someone's mouth. Stormbringer admits to having faked responses from what he calls "the main trolls" in his comment section. (He did eventually delete the falsified comments.) That was putting words in their mouth.
     Now, I think he fits his other criteria for lying quite well as well. But that comes from more general experience with him. To make a case, I would have to fill this with many of his statements. But I expect several readers are familiar with Stormbringer and can come to their own conclusions.
     Oh, yes, I will copy this post as a comment to Stormbringer's blog entry. I don't really expect him to do anything other than hit delete. But it gives him the opportunity to be "Withholding the truth." He's deleted my comments before.

Christianity is a trap.

     It should come as no surprise to anyone that reads this blog that I don't think that christianity is true. But I go further than this. Christianity is a trap. It's not even a well-disguised trap. The warnings are rather obvious. Christian leaders and those who try to convert outsiders are called "fishers of men." Well, is anyone confused about what happens to the fish that are caught by fishers? If there is any doubt, I would like to point out that, in the time that the phrase originated, there was no such thing as a catch-and-release program. As if that isn't enough of a warning, christians are called to be "sheep" with Jesus as the "shepherd." Now, I don't know about you. But I have no desire to become mutton. It is no secret that a shepherd is only interested in the well-being of the sheep until he can turn it into meat. So, sure, he protects the sheep from predators. He wants that meal for himself. Seriously, how many bright red warning labels do people need?

Philosophy as a timewaster?

     Yes, our resident clown, Stormbringer, is at it again.
     "Don't get the wrong idea, I am not saying that all philosophy is a waste of time, and reject it out of hand."
     Well, my experience is that he rejects all dissent out of hand. Of course, if I am wrong, people are free to give their evidence why that is so.
     "When discussing the nature of [g]od, or existence, or [g]od's existence, I am not interested in the opinions of the 'great philosophers' for very long. Instead, I believe that people are not interested in reaching the truth."
     Of course he's not interested in the opinions of the great philosophers. These were people who sought to penetrate the unknown and, hopefully, find the truth. But Stormbringer is quite right. Many people are not interested in reaching the truth. They prefer to use some "holy book" and not even think.
     "Me, I prefer to talk like regular people instead of putting my audience off by excessive circumlocution."
     The act of "talking around" an issue can be done without the use of fancy words and obscure terminology. I would argue that Stormbringer's own blog is a perfect example of this point.
     "So, if a discussion turns overly philosophical, don't be surprised if I bail out because I feel that it is self-indulgent and unproductive."
     Given that self-indulgent and unproductive is the general nature of his operation, I must conclude that he has some other reason for bailing out.
     "By the way, there are so many philosophers and philosophies through the ages. One reason for this, it seems to me, is because they are all incomplete. Sure, some are clever and raise some good points. But they haven't arrived at the truth which they allegedly seek."
     Personally, I think this is because truth is more a journey than a destination. Oh, and then he gives the quote "For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles." Let's put that in simpler terms, shall we? Anyone who actually thinks about christianity will come to the conclusion that it is false. The only ones who believe are the ones who do so mindlessly.

Another funny post

     Here is another funny post, courtesy of Stormbringer. I wonder if he is genuine. If his posts deliberately produce the humor I see, he could write for the major networks.
     "I'm not saying the rest of this series wasn't the truth."
     He doesn't have to. His readers will say it isn't the truth.
     "Let me take a moment (heh, like you can stop me) and say that this Weblog is intended for entertainment as well as information, and most of my readers are bright enough to know when I'm using some window dressing to 'punch it up'."
     Hey, I find it entertaining. I don't see any useful information; but it's good for giggles.
     "Although there is no 'crew' (duh!), there are real people that I've assigned to it, and they have fun being a member of a made-up little group."
     You will get to see such names as William Rehnquist, Carl Sagan, Newt Gingrich, Richard Dawkins, and Margaret Thatcher (real people all.) And that's all you will see from them -- their names. All actual content is supplied by Stormbringer and no one else. (Actually, I don't know what names he has assigned to his crew. But any real people associated with those names are likely unaware of his use thereof.)
     "...[A]nd I want to do what I can to help bring them to seek a saving, personal relationship with Christ."
     He misspelled "salving." Ehh, could happen to anyone. I've had typos myself.
     "There are people who think that people like me are the problem, and (not naming names, I don't want to give certain people the traffic) they are so consumed by hate and anti-[c]hristian ideology that their thinking processes are short-circuited."
     As I recall, one of the signs that you are in a cult is that your information is filtered. Is Stormbringer really that scared of the thought of his readers hearing what his detractors have to say? It would explain why he pre-screens comments. There might be something thought-provoking before he gets a chance to delete it. Now, I admit that I have standards by which I will delete comments. But I'm not worried if someone happens to see them before I get to them. And if my readers check the (rather few) comments I actually get, they will find that agreeing with every word I say is not one of my requirements for keeping a comment.
     "One in particular hates all [c]hristians so much, he imagines them around every corner. His profane diatribes and intellectual castration keep his nonsense in the 'mostly ignored' category, fortunately. But he still tries, sometimes writing several articles a day."
     Aww, I'm jealous. Someone else has gotten the clown's attention? I want to see what this person has written that has Stormbringer pulling down the shades.
     "I have been personally attacked in forums, the subject of Weblog articles, attacked in comments &c. This shows that I am getting the attention of some people, and it means that I am poking some consciences (2 Timothy 3.12-13, but I have to avoid inviting 'persecution' for being obnoxious)."
     I have seen some of what he calls "personal attacks." I have to say that he likes to imagine persecution. Even that is hardly unique. But he is right. He does get people's attention. He's not as good as Hudson and Landry; but he is funny.
     "Some people have tried to silence me."
     I find that hard to believe. Having Stormbringer's words in the open is very useful for showing what fundamentalism is really like. I laugh at him. I wouldn't want to silence him.

UPDATE:

     "But don't be surprised if you get out of line and I call you on it; there are whiners that bemoan my 'attitude' when I give back what they started (especially liars and people who think that they are smarter than they really are). If you can't stand a response, don't start something, capice? Don't swim in the big people area, go back to the wading pool."
     He had to run away from Dan's blog because people could post without going through the Stormbringer filter. It is only when he can exert total control over what people can see that he is able to create an impression that he isn't whining. I love the irony when he says "liars and people who think that they are smarter than they really are." I wonder if he'll ever realize that he's describing himself. And he, himself, cannot stand a response. That's why he went back to his own blog where he can pre=screen all comments. But he did take his own advice in one respect. He has definitely gone back to the wading pool.

PB: Presuppositional Baloney

     By now the three of you that actually read my rants have probably encountered Presuppositional Baloney. Practicers of this ancient art (two or three years) ask people how they "account for logic" according to their worldviews. Of course, the whole thing is nonsense. No one accounts for logic. It is necessarily axiomatic in any worldview. Any attempt to account for logic must use logic. Why do the Baloney-ists do this? It is a tactic to deflect examination of their postulated god. They demand an "accounting for logic" any time someone dares to ask for evidence of their alleged god. This tells me that even they don't believe their god is real.

At least he's good for laughs

     Stormbringer wrote another post in which he displays typical christian "humility." I thought I'd make some comments.
     "Ready for some brutal honesty? Good."
     When I look for honesty, I don't look to his blog. I have yet to see him be honest.
     "Nope. I'm still partly looney, but not all the way yet."
     Personally, I think he has been "all the way" for quite some time.
     "There was a time when the trolls would attack and I would send them home bleeding and crying."
     Really? That's not what I've seen. I've seen him lash out at people, myself included, and call their reasoned replies "crying." I have also seen him call far too many people "trolls." I think my favorite bit of Stormbringer inanity was one blog where he showed up and, after about a week I think it was, accused the long-time regulars of that blog of stalking him and following him to the blog. It's certainly one of the first things I noticed about him. (I'm going to have to see if I can find that one.)
     "It's funny when I'm being set up and you get surprised when I'm civil in my responses."
     Has anybody seen an example of this? Admittedly, I would be surprised to find him civil in response to anyone that was not worshipping the ground on which he walks. But that is only because it is so out of character with his actual responses.
     "If you ever browse this Weblog, I hope you'll find some other items that you find interesting, educational and entertaining."
     I do find him entertaining -- a sort of comic relief.

UPDATE: Here is where he complained of stalkers. His comments on this thread are also quite amusing as he spends more time thinking up insults for people than doing anything else.

FURTHER UPDATE: He seems to think that he can get my goat by manufacturing comments pretending to be from someone else that make the same insults that he uses under his own name. Hey, why not go whole hog, Stormbringer? Since you can use OpenID to forge comments and pretend they came from anyone, why not pretend it's Richard Dawkins who is belittling me and agreeing with every word you say? After all, the fellow whose name you're forging on your comments has probably never even seen your blog.
     Hmmm... It didn't take him long to remove his conversation with himself after I posted that update. And here I had the popcorn ready for his next con job. I guess I'll have to settle for "comments? What comments?"

Twin perspectives on ridicule

     "Perhaps the best way to use mockery as a tool against the pseudo-profound is in the way of the young boy who noticed that the Emperor had no clothes. He simply stated a fact without being concerned if he was profound or not.
     "Demonstrating facts may not convince the converted (they still want to be wise enough to see the gorgeous fabric) but it does expose the pseudo-profound guru for what he is and cause him to be the source of his own mockery.
     "I have seen John Stewart do this on the Daily Show by showing film clips with very little comment needed.
     "When a guru attacks or twists the facts, a continued repetition of the facts ('I don't see any clothes') would make it more obvious that the pseudo-profundity is meaningless. I don't know if this is a philosophy term, but I always called it the 'broken record' technique when debating with my children!"

     "All I can say is, you will get nowhere. Presuppos are not about converting, but about ridiculing the opposition by using any tricks necessary. They call this 'show that they deny the truth in unrighteousness.' So, honesty is not something that worries them."

     These are twin perspectives on ridicule, one favoring it, the other opposing. But it should be noted that the stances of the respective authors do not differ on much else. The second quote talks about the frustration of dealing with the people who practice "presuppositional apologetics." What I find interesting is the fact that presuppositionalists follow the exact tactics advocated by the first quote right down to the "broken record." Restating something as fact repeatedly, of course, is not the same thing as demonstrating it to be a fact. But it is my experience that those who use ridicule tend to skip over the demonstrating part anyway.

Untitled

     Dan says he's not deleting comments. The above image is a comment that I screen-captured. (I didn't keep the entire screen image -- just the relevant part.) It reached his blog. It is not a Blogger issue. If you don't find it in this thread, it means he deleted it.

Comment lost at Dan's blog

     On this post, I replied to Dan. Blogger acted up and posted twice. I removed the duplicate. Dan wiped out the original completely. I reposted. And Dan seems to have wiped that out as well. (Maybe, it's just Blogger acting up; but, since I have already lost my original wording, I am going to put my post here.)

Dan:

     "You use your reasoning to test your reasoning which is viciously circular."
     I have already told you that I do not test my reasoning at all. My ability to reason is not in dispute. (If you disputed my ability to reason, you could not rationally call on me to "account for" it.)
     "Its perfectly understandable that you cannot grasp this, since you cannot even account for your reasoning which 'never advances your knowledge.'"
     The following is from the site that you quoted:
     "For an argument to have any epistemological or dialectical force, it must start from premisses already known or believed by its audience, and proceed to a conclusion not known or believed." [Emphasis mine]
     Since my ability to reason is already known or believed by everyone on our respective blogs, any attempt to "account for" it, would fail the requirements for a useful argument. Your very request that I "account for" the rules of logic is a wild goose chase that cannot advance knowledge.

     You gave a link regarding presuppositional apologetics that you said was worth checking out. It was, indeed, worth a look. This is what I found:
     "Sye's response is just patent nonsense, and I agree with Paul that it is dishonest. Even if it's the case that Sye COULD be certain (which we can go along with for the sake of argument, not because it is epistemically obligatory), it's still also the case that he COULD be mistaken (whether it's because of a hallucination or just an error in judgement is not important). Thus (2) is obviously NOT irrelvant, even if it's true that Sye COULD have certainty. Whether this is simply a misunderstanding of modal logic by Sye, or the fact that, as I showed earlier, his arguments presuppose his own infallibility, is impossible to say. I think what is safe to say is that every person reading this thread except for Sye recognizes this rather magnificant hole in his argument. When it comes down to the question of how Sye actually knows he has a revelation from God or is actually (like so many other people as even Sye must admit) deceived about that fact, he has nothing to offer except to say that the materialist doesn't even have a possibility of certainty. That might be the case, but it still doesn't prove that Sye is right! It could be the case that the materialist has no certainty AND that Sye is mistaken in his belief that God has revealed anything to him at all. You can't cover up for that just by playing word games."
     That came from a christian. But it came from an honest one. I do not agree with everything he says. But I am convinced that he believes what he says. I can't give Sye the same credit. He pulled the "you're divisive, so I won't have anything more to do with you" card. That may be biblical. But it's only a reason to suspect that the bible is a con job. Consider, any dissent could be regarded as divisive. It is precisely the way con men don't want to deal with people that subject their claims to critical examination. They will "refuse to have anything to do with that person" in favor of the easy marks.

UPDATE: Another comment of mine disappeared. This time I can rule out a Blogger glitch as the comment appeared with no trouble, showed up visibly on the thread for probably about fifteen minutes and then vanished. I will try to reconstruct it here as best I can.

     "Again, I did not ask whether or not you are capable of using logic, I asked how you account for the laws of logic."
     Word games aside, you are still asking for an "account" of something not in dispute. Remember "and proceed to a conclusion not known or believed." Unless you are claiming that the laws of logic do not exist, you are still trying to lead me on a wild goose chase.
     "But since his reasoning is invalid, he would obviously be wrong."
     And if you thought my reasoning was invalid, nothing I could say would convince you otherwise, as you would dismiss it as the product of "invalid reasoning." You might be persuaded by someone whose reasoning you trusted.
     "Assuming that your reasoning is not evidence for [g]od, is question begging though, as you start with the presupposition that [g]od does not exist in order to conclude that your ability to reason is not evidence of [g]od."
     That is a lie. I hold no such presupposition. Whether or not your god exists, however, my ability to reason is not evidence for your god.
     "Getting close now but, how is [this reasoning] already known to exist within your worldview?"
     It is known to exist within my worldview by virtue of the fact that I declare that it exists. But that is a secondary point. It is inappropriate for you to call for a rational accounting for something unless your worldview doubts it.
     "Yes, lets do that. Do you concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?"
     Asked and answered. I already answered that question on 13 Sep at 1:21pm. [In case Dan decides that my response existing prior to this invocation of the question is "inappropriate," I shall copy that entire response below.]
     "'We don't have eyewitness accounts. [We have anonymous accounts claiming to document others as witnesses.]'
     "O'rly? So you discount ALL of history now? Crusades didn't exist because no one is here to verify it?"
     The christian in question, in support of his claims of the resurrection, said that we had eyewitness accounts. Pointing out that the type of evidence claimed is not actually available is not the same thing as saying it is the only type of evidence that will be accepted.

Text of 13 Sep 1:21pm comment:

     "Assuming that your reasoning is not evidence for [g]od, is question begging, as you start with the presupposition that [g]od does not exist in order to conclude that your ability to reason is not evidence of [g]od."
     That is incorrect. Let's look at the construction of the proposition. Asserting that Whateverman's ability to reason is not evidence for the queen of England does not require a prior assumption that there is no queen of England. The construction "my ability to reason is not evidence of " does not require that be false and so does not beg the question.
     "1. How do you know that your reasoning about this, or ANYTHING, is valid?
     "2. How do YOU account for the laws of logic always existing?
     "3. How, within your worldview, do you get to indubitable knowledge or certainty?
     "4. Do you concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?"
     Questions 1-3 are completely invalid. Although they vary in wording they are calling for an accounting of axioms, demanding that they be drawn, instead, as conclusions. Question 4 can be meaningfully answered. An omniscient, omnipotent being cannot reveal things to us in such a way that we can be certain of them. An omniscient being cannot exist at all. An omnipotent being could "reveal" falsehoods in such a way that you would claim that you knew for certain that they were true. An omnipotent being, therefore, invalidates certitude.

     Stephen Law has done a blog entry about pseudo-profundity, which he apparently intends to include in a future book. He should include another section.

Mock your critics

It's easy, formulaic, and likely to impress your audience. When someone starts critically examining the position you espouse say that he "believes in alien abductions" or "is a flat-earther." The more inflammatory and baseless the claim the better. Your critic is likely to exhibit an emotional reaction to being ridiculed on the basis of a lie. At this point, the audience will see him only as a hothead and will not listen to anything he has to say. Even in the unlikely event that the critic "keeps his cool," the audience may take your charge at face value and still disregard anything your critic says. You will appear to be wise and patient dealing with someone who has nothing of consequence to say.

     That is part of the technique used by the pseudo-profound. Mr. Law would do a disservice not to warn people about it. It's possible he simply overlooked it. So I have taken the liberty of giving him a comment to include it.

Note: Edited for typographical errors.

I found this interesting

     This site, written by a christian, talks about calling people haters as a conversation stopper. Strangely, even though he seems to be describing it as an inappropriate tactic used by atheists, some christians I have encountered appear to have taken it as a recommendation instead.

One point on which Stormbringer was innocent.

     I previously thought that Stormbringer had arranged for the spam comments I was getting, or was writing them himself. I still think that matches his level of integrity. However, I must concede that it was only a coincidence of timing. These same spammers have been attacking various blogs since before Stormbringer came on the scene. And I have run across some of their old comments, still not deleted. He cannot have been involved; and I must concede that I was wrong for thinking he was.

The "good person test"

     I thought I would talk about the sham invented (as far as I know) by Ray Comfort and implemented by his mindless followers known as the "good person test." The con man first asks the victim if he thinks he is (currently) a good person. Of course, everybody thinks himself to be a good person. When the victim says that he does consider himself a good person, the con man asks if he can ask a few questions "to see if that's true." The first of these questions is invariably "have you ever told a lie in your whole life?" The fact is that every has lied at some point. For every person, there was a point when he didn't know any better. For that matter people can, and often do, become better people. But for these con men, it's "tell so much as one lie; never live it down."
     But the low lifes that run this scam are not content with actions that people have actually done. No, they want all their victims to see themselves as "murderers." There's a slight difficulty with this concept. Most people haven't killed anyone. But the wretches will not be deterred. They tell the lie that "anger is murder at heart." In reality, of course, the only thing that is murder at heart is attempting to murder someone. If you think about it, it is not hard to see the whole thing for the scam it is. But the whole exercise to designed to keep the victim from thinking clearly. Ray Comfor calls it "circumnavigating the intellect."

Ignorance of the law

     Some people say that ignorance of the law is not an excuse (legem ignovisse homini non ignoscit.) I say the reverse. It is a rather compelling excuse. Someone who is unfamiliar with a particular law cannot follow it. Furthermore, there are so many laws on the books that it is just not possible to be familiar with all of them. Now let's consider what happens when we try to examine the principle as applied to "god's law." Well, different religions have different claims about what "god's law" is. If this supposed god can't be bothered to show up and clear the confusion, it is impossible to take the notion of "god's law" seriously. Is it possible that there is some powerful being that will actually judge us on the basis of some version of "god's law"? Sure, it's possible. But the way it is actually set up in such a case, the "law" is not designed to be a guide to behavior, but rather as a trap to call people guilty.

Questioning integrity

     "Screaming like scalded cats when I gave them a payback: I faked a couple of 'responses' from the main trolls here in the comment section, left them for a couple of days and took them down."
     "Another time, I was accused of creating someone else, and by the same cafone that did not learn his lesson before. I tried to tell him that this guy even has his own Website. I gave up before I bothered to tell Mr. Cafone that the individual he assumed that I manufactured on the spot had commented on other Weblogs in which both people had participated."
     These two quotes are by the same person. They even appear on the same blog (in main posts, not the comment sections.) As a clarification, he has been accused of writing comments and falsely attributing them to other people. But he has admitted to doing just that. Indeed he only took down the faked responses when the people whose "signatures" he was forging started "screaming like scalded cats." So, sure the people he claims certain comments are from actually exist. They just didn't write the comments he attributes to them. And he's upset that people doubt his integrity?

UPDATE:

     "Here is what was posted, a quote from me, in the proper context. I am putting the parts in red that [he] left off from [his] personal attack on me:"
     Yes, it's so personal that I didn't even identify this individual. There are a few individuals that I find entertaining and will comment on from time to time.
     "Screaming like scalded cats when I gave them a payback: I faked a couple of 'responses' from the main trolls here in the comment section, left them for a couple of days and took them down. Helps prove two of my points: They can't take a joke, and if they had lives that extended beyond trolling, they wouldn't have been pranked. Their double standards are amazing." [Part I quoted initially in bold]
     A quote is out of context when its meaning is changed from the original. I left out his excuses as not particularly relevant. His excuses are also not true. His being an imposter and attempting to put words in someone else's mouth does not prove anything about the other person. Furthermore I don't know of anyone who can take a "joke" like that. Nobody likes having his name used in "support" of a position he opposes. That is no prank. (Note: I do not happen to be one of the people to whom he did this.) The second excuse sounds rather like something a wife-beater says about why he beats his wife. Blaming the victim does not impress anyone.
     "Keep it up, [o wise one,] the crew and I are laughing at you again."
     Somehow I rather doubt that he has a crew. He also seems to forget that he is pretending to ignore me. I have no problem if he ignores me. His inanity is entertaining either way.
     "Even more surprising, this was done to 'prove' that I have made up entire people, numerous comments and, I assume, entire [w]ebsites."
     He is accused only of making up the comments. In his effort to maintain an illusion, he wishes to defend against the nonexistent charge that the people he is attributing his comments to don't exist. The people he faked responses from most certainly exist. They objected to his forgery. No one is claiming that any of these people don't exist. People are saying that these people didn't write what this character says they wrote. That's why the forged comments are "OpenID." He is able to link to anyone's site claiming a comment came from them without their permission.

And the blog belonged to...

     Stormbringer. I heard that he was given the Terry Burton award (in reference to the Terry Burton that often shows up at Ray's blog. I have to say, he is putting a lot of effort towards earning it. Here you will find another post he did. And below I will include my reply that he deleted.

     "Then you engaged in some projection, typical of a sick mind."
     Projection may be typical of a sick mind; but I only reflected yours back at you. If decapitalization is your idea of "venom," then it is safe to say that you have never actually received a hateful comment.
     "You are a hypocrite because you moderate your comments as well, and you have deleted some."
     Where did my comment say anything about moderation and/or deletion? I said that you use the "hateful" label so that you don't have to think about dissent. To counter that, all you would need to do is show some dissenting commentary that you didn't consider "hateful." Ah, but you can't do that, can you?
     "If you had something intelligent to say, or even entertaining, I would let future comments go through. Since you are a pretentious, vicious coward with nothing interesting to say, you are dismissed."
     Others might disagree with your definitions of "intelligent," "pretentious," and "vicious."
     "I know you're obsessed with me..."
     Oh, your just a perfect example of someone who fears critical thought. Daniel's incoherence was more entertaining until his "prophecy" about the destruction of San Francisco failed and he pulled down his blog and went into hiding. No, your not the first person I've written about because he looks like an unbelievable charicature.
     "...[Y]ou have four readers who actually like your mindless nonsense."
     Aw, is that supposed to be a blow to my ego? I'm not the one who claims there are hoards of people hanging on my every word.

     By the way, for your edification, there was more than one person with the name "PVBLIVS" -- just like there was more than one person with the name "Theodore."

     Now, not only did he delete the comment, but he created a fake comment (with OpenID he can pretend to be anybody) to claim that Stormbringer "debates" but that I was just "crying." Funny, this supposed other person talks just like Stormbringer, right down to his chosen diminutive in place of my name. Now, I realize that anyone who is convinced ahead of time that I am "crying" will interpret anything I say in that light. But I defy anyone to give an example of Stormbringer actually debating instead of pulling out thought-stoppers. For that matter, I don't think any of Stormbringer's supporters (does he have any other than himself?) can provide an example of dissent that Stormbringer didn't label "hateful."
     Oh, yes, nobody won the ten points. I would have provided more time; but there was just too much entertainment value to Stormbringer's next post -- the comment on which I issued the points challenge belonging to the post just prior to the one to which today's comment belongs.

Here is a comment I posted on another blog.

     "Here is a story that has been circulating. No, I don't think it's entirely true, but it could happen:"
     "[Y]ou'll use a joke to 'prove' your beliefs."
     Interesting, now you're saying something you claimed could happen is a joke. I do not vouch for the authenticity of the story. But you were using it in an effort to illustrate your point. I simply used it to illustrate mine.
     "You also reinforce something I've stated, that atheists have no sense of humor unless they're making derisive comments about [g]od and [c]hristians."
     This must be another "joke." My tendencies say nothing about atheists as I am not an atheist. Perhaps your difficulty with "the inability of some people to take a joke" stems from the fact that the "joke" was not intended as such when you delivered it.
     "As for the rest of your comments...not worth my time."
     I understand. You are too filled with hate to consider the mindset of someone who is not bowing before you.

     I really don't expect the comment to be approved. This particular fellow likes to maintain an illusion. But I will offer 10 points to anyone (other than the author of that blog) who can identify, just from what I have posted here, whose blog that is.