A message to christians.

     Dan claims that he is commanded to spread the warning to people about the "dangers" of not accepting Jesus but that he is under no obligation to try to be convincing in any way. If we are to assume that the christian god is real. Dan's efforts are like a highway worker trying to warn people of a collapsed bridge by wearing a jester's costume, doing a silly dance, falling down a lot and saying "A snake is swallowing the sun, the mountains are turning into giant stone warriors, killer rabbits are invading the city, the bridge is out, gophers are killing people with the lasers in their eyes, and space aliens are kidnapping thousands." Who here would be convinced that such a highway worker was doing his job? No one. He's not warning anyone of anything. He's making it look like a big joke.
     Now, if christianity is wrong, like I believe, it doesn't matter much. On the other hand, you have the story of the separation of the sheep from the goats. In that story, the people on Jesus's (left?) side ask him, did they not perform miracles in his name. Who do you think those people might be? I certainly don't claim to do anything in the name of Jesus. Those people have to come from the ranks of asserted believers. Dan, and those of you who use the same strategy, could very well find yourselves told that he never knew you. Perhaps you had better hope that I am right.

The content of an electronic submission from myself to Sen. McCain.

(The subject isn't a good fit. But none of the choices are.)

I read with some dismay that you are actively trying to dismantle freedom in this country and nullify the Constitutional protections that the citizens enjoy to prevent tyranny in government. Specificly, I read that you authored legislation that would allow a de facto military dictatorship to lock up political dissidents and protesters indefinitely without charge or trial by merely using the codephrase "suspected terrorist." I'm sure that you are aware that the due-process provision of the Fifth Amendment and the speedy trial provision of the Sixth were put in place to prevent the types of abuses that George III of England imposed against the colonists. We do not need people inconvenient to the powers-that-be just "disappearing."

For all the rhetoric that is going around these days, it would appear that the biggest haters of freedom, the biggest terrorists are sitting in the United States Congress or funding the campaigns of those who do. No credible threat to our freedoms currently comes from outside of our country. They can burn all the flags that they want. It means nothing more than a child sticking out his tongue. It is the active dismantling of the freedom of the people that you are engaged in that is the true threat.

     I should note that I don't expect him actually to read it. But it would be nice if he read it and showed some signs of a conscience and/or respect for the Constitution.

Well, I have to give Dan credit in one sense on his blog.

     Most people who blog on "controversial" topics prefer to have an echo chamber and willremove the comments of those who disagree with them (except possibly when they think a comment can be twisted to make the opposition look bad.) Many (e.g. Norman) pre-screen all their comments so their followers will never see any convincing dissent. But Dan allows dissenting comments to stand on his blog. This doesn't mean that I think his beliefs are correct in any way. It just means that he has the courage to let any followers he may have see the opposition without applying his filter first.

Norman, again

     Norman is complaining that non-believers are failing to check the original stories when they say that the stories of Jesus are based on pre-existing myths and that they are "comparing notes with other biased disbelievers." And he includes a couple links to try to make his case "withalliamgod.wordpress.com" and "www.tillhecomes.org." That's right. He encourages his readers to compare notes with other biased christians.

I have stated that formal schooling os usually superior to home-schooling.

     I have stated that, in most cases, formal schooling is superor to home-schooling. My reasoning is simple. The instructors in formal education have more knowledge about their respective fields than the parents do. "This is simply because the instructor must be more advanced in knowledge of the subject than the level of knowledge he wishes to impart to his students."
     It should probably come as no surprise that Dan ignored my stated reasoning and invented some fictitious reasoning claiming that I prefer people to become sheep. The irony is, of course, rather obvious. Dan and his fellow christians brag about being sheep for Jesus.
     Imagination and creativity cannot be taught. They develop on their own. Now, they can be stifled. From what I have read, certain "high performance" private schools do just that. But those are not really in my consideration when I say that the formal education is superior. And the public schools that Dan likes to criticize so much do not do that. But then, I suspect (even still) that Dan home-schools his children to make sure that they remain sheep for Jesus. The public schools will teach things that challenge the bible. I really doubt that Dan will expose his children to any of those things.

The other day, when I was grocery shopping.

     The other day, when I was grocery shopping, I heard several people wish one of the workers a happy birthday over the loudspeaker. Personally, I find my birthdays to be a lot happier when I have the day off.

Alex is saying that people like Sye, Dan, and Norman deserve nothing but ridicule.

     Well, it's true that that is what they deserve. But I still wouldn't recommend treating them that way. It's not for their sake. Anyone can ridicule opposing ideas [Norman's] Thunder does this all the time. Ridiculing a bad idea to reject it looks just the same as ridiculing a good idea to suppress it.

Can't you just feel the love? Me neither.

     I present to you an excerpt from one of Dan's comments.

     "I am only going to pray for [our] [g]od's [w]ill be done. At this point I think its clear as to how [our] [g]od decided where to place Alex to glorify [the alleged] [c]hrist for all of eternity. Praise the [l]ord."

     I should point out a few things. Dan is contradicting the bible that he claims to be his god's word. The bible claims that their god is "unwilling that any should perish." Dan is saying not only that his god wills people in advance to perish, but that he (Dan) actively wants it to happen. This also shows that Dan (despite his statements to the contrary) has no love for anyone. He just wants to do what he hopes will save his own skin. Dan, furthermore, clearly shows that he has no concern for ethics. I would really be frightened of what Dan might do if he thought he could get away with it -- or if he convinced himself that his god commanded it.
     It would be rather fitting, on the assumption that there is an afterlife, that Dan got to experience what he praying for Alex to experience. But I would still rather that Dan's eyes be opened instead.

Sye wants Eric Hovind to be the sole moderator of any debates.

     Yes, that would be the same Eric Hovind that gave Sye admin priviledges on his blog. Personally, I don't that speaks well for his impartiality in any debate to which Sye is a party. Sye then goes on to say that Paul Baird had no problems with Hovind being the sole moderator. Well, I say let Paul speak for himself. Absent Paul weighing in, I am going to continue to think that Paul just tolerated Hovind so that Sye might stop putting up roadblocks. And I definitely don't trust Sye to speak on Paul's behalf.

Sye has said...

     Sye has said that you cannot test the precondition for accuracy for accuracy. With this much, I agree. If there is a precondition for accuracy, you can't test it for accuracy. But the bible, which he claims as such a precondition, can be tested. And it fails. The bible is inaccurate and cannot serve as a precondition for accuracy.
     I should also note that Sye found out that his tricks weren't working. His enormous ego does not allow him to admit failure. He therefore feigned boredom. But, in reality, he took his ball and went home.

Alex has asserted that Rhology is afraid to have his name revealed.

     I can see that. I, too, "hide" behind internet anonymity so that some of the crazier people don't look me up with a shotgun in hand. Some of these "defenders of Jesus" frighten me, not because I think they have any merit (they don't) but because I fear for my personal safety. Perhaps Rhology does as well.
     Now, what doesn't make sense about this is that Rhology claims he isn't afraid. I really don't see any alternate explanation for deleting comments for nothing more than containing his name.

Sye has challenged Bob to a debate

     And Bob has accepted that challenge. At the moment, Sye seems to be trying to wiggle his way out of it. However, since Sye has issued the challenge, I think the debate should go on with or without him.

     Sye has made the following comment:

"You dodge and evade."

As is evidenced by the debates I have done :-)

Look, fact is that I am just an average guy, who was a skilled tradesman 3 1/2 years ago. By God's grace alone, I have been able to engage people and their worldviews have been exposed for the foolishness that they are.

I have nothing to fear when I enter these debates, as I pray that if I am to be made to look like a fool for His glory, then so be it, but as yet, God has spared me from that end.

God is sovereign. If these debates happen, great, if they don't, no big deal.

If you wish to think that I evade debates, fine, I could not care less. I think my record indicates otherwise.

Cheers.

     I will take the evidence on this debate which either he will or will not do. I am only interested in whether he has done this debate. That will be his record. And it will, indeed speak for itself.

Norman brings up a good point.

     It just isn't the one he thinks. The "Tea Party" is very much part of the establishment. It has to be. None of its members were arrested.
     In every protest movement, members are arrested. Usually, there are riots. One hypothesis is that the establishment sends in confederates to throw bricks, smash windows, and commit other harmful actions while acting as a "protester" to create an image that the protesters are just a bunch of thugs. Now, some actual protesters may follow like sheep and join in, or they may not. Either way, the fakes have given the police a "reason" to arrest everyone. This hypothesis seems to fit rather strongly and I am inclined to believe it is the reality.
     As Norman pointed out, none of this happened with the "Tea Party" movement. The only conclusion is that it was only made to look like a protest, but had the full blessings of the establishment.

A method for computing logarithms

     Some time ago, I found a method for computing logarithms very quickly. It involves two functions.

Float U(Float m)
   {
    Float A, B, S, C;
    A = 1;
    B = sqrt(1 - m);

    while ((A - B) > tiny)
       {
        C = (A + B);
        B = sqrt(A * B);
        A = C;
       }

    A = pi / (A + B);
    S = sqrt(m);

    while ((1 - S) > tiny)
       {
        A = A * (1 + S) / 2;
        S = 2 * sqrt(S) / (1 + S);
       }

    return A * (1 + S) / 2;
   }

Float T(Float m)
   {
    Float V, S, W;
    V = 1;
    S = sqrt(m);

    while ((1 - S) > tiny)
       {
        W = 2 * S * V / (1 + (V * V));
        W = W / (1 + sqrt(1 - (W * W)));
        W = (V + W) / (1 - (V * W));
        V = W / (1 * sqrt(1 + (W * W));
        S = 2 * sqrt(S) / (1 + S);
       }

    return (1 + V) / (1 - V);
   }

     Now, with these 2 functions, U = ln(T). I found this in JACM. Even though it may be considered an authority on the matter, I still tested it myself. This is an important point. I test things for myself. I do not take things on faith.

     When people try to convince me that large-scale evolution is true and that it is responsible for the diversity of life on the planet, they keep calling on me to accept it on faith. It doesn't matter if they say there are tons of evidence. Interpreting the evidence requires training. And mere admission into that training requires an existing blind-faith belief that "evolution is true." I am, essentially, not allowed to check first. So I don't trust. Maybe it's true. Maybe it's not. But I can't confirm it.

"How do you know that?"

     The standard line that someone who uses Presuppositional Baloney uses when he is clearly defeated is to ask "how do you know that?" It is not a sincere question, and any response will be met with the same question. I think that the best thing to do when a PB'er starts that is to acknowledge that he knows he has lost, openly regard it as a concession of defeat and accept that concession.

Norman is deceiving again.

     In this case, he has included a screen capture of one of my comments. He falsely accuses it of being an ad hominem attack, in particular because I correctly stated that he wished death on all non-christians. He had, not long before, stated openly that he wanted all non-christians to die in some fashion. I forget the details; it has been a while now. But the details behind my post were that, when he talked about a device, remotely implanted to cure various people he considered undesirable of habits he didn't like, it would turn out to be a bullet administered by a gun. And that's exactly what it turned out to be. That is not an ad hominem attack. It is a demonstration that I was able to determine, from examination of his previous statements, something he was thinking but had only partly revealed.
     Now, he makes other various charges against people who disagree with him. But the fact is that he does block people who disagree with him on his various accounts, and he claims to be trying to facilitate discussion. Well, if he is trying to facilitate discussion, he should be open to hearing dissenting views. But he is not. It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude that what he is really doing is trying to project an illusion, and he fears that genuine presentation of alternate views will shatter this illusion. If his motive is different, he can certainly present it. He can't present it on my blog. I'll delete him. I have grown to tired of his posting lies and deleting my responses. Well, here, his responses can be deleted.

Norman is making his excuses for not appearing on a podcast.

     Regardless of what he states his reasons are, he did say that anyone who didn't call in to the con-man Matt Slick's show was a coward. He has been given an identical challenge. By his own standards, he is a coward.
     Even with all that, I don't think he should call in. Norman is a nutcase. And people want him to call in because it allows them to portray all christians as nutcases. And... I don't think that all christians are nutcases. I think they hold a false belief. But, let's face it, the only way to avoid having some false beliefs is to have no beliefs.
     Now, I have said, and I maintain, that Norman is the true face of christianity. Saner christians tone it down and conceal the more bloodthirsty elements of their religion. And, in all likelihood, they do not completely embrace their religion. But they still believe the basic tenets (e.g. Jesus being needed for "salvation.")

What do christians praise about their god?

     Well, Norman (who represents the true face of christianity) has recently done a blog post about what he finds admirable about his god. He praises his god for (according to the story) murdering hundreds of innocents with just twelve inches of water. Now, the main thrust of his post is that "atheists" claim there are no miracles portrayed in the bible. Quite frankly, I doubt that there is a single atheist who makes such a claim, although I suppose it's possible. But I think he got some christian to "play atheist" for his story.
     Even though it's not the main focus of his post, I think that the fact that Norman praises murder (when done by his god) is quite telling and quite frightening. Christianity is evil because it praises such horrors and holds them as wonderful. It matters not that I and many others think that the events portrayed are fictional. The description is a description of evil. And to praise it is still to praise evil.

Norman and "logic lessons"

     Well, it looks like Norman has decided to do "logic lessons" again. This time he is talking about "appeal to motive." Yes, the fellow who says that anyone who disagrees with him in any way, shape, or form does so with the motive of "hate" is talking about other people making a false appeal to motive. You can find his post at "http://stormbringer005.blogspot.com" Oh, if anyone is interested in looking at wehat he has to say (and having a good laugh at it) I ask that you not type the address in directly from my blog. He is a sufficient irritant when he decides to harrass me that I would just as soon he continue to forget that I even exist.
     "I posted some song lyrics in the comments section of a Weblog, and [I] said that I posted them 'to feel better about myself.' (What gave [me] the idea that [I] had insight into [my own] mental processes, I have no idea.)"
     Well, personally, I am prepared to assume that Norman knows his own mind. But things get tricky when he pretends to be multiple people. But, I would guess in this instance (assuming he didn't invent it out of whole cloth) that he posted some song lyrics that excused or "commanded" an inappropriate act that he was caught doing. In such a circumstance, it is quite reasonable to conclude that he had posted those lyrics to feel better about himself. He would be being told that what he was doing was wrong, and he would be posting song lyrics to tell himself that what he was doing was "right" or at least acceptable.
     Of course, since he doesn't provide the actual encounter as evidence, the most we can do is speculate about the event and what a possible opposition that witnessed the event might argue.

A lot of people say the attacks came as a complete surprise.

     A lot of people, even now, say that the attack came as a complete surprise. That is simply not true. Oh, the citizenry didn't know about the attack in advance; but the leadership did. Ah, but the leaders wanted to go to war and the public didn't. If the attack was prevented, there would still be no support. There is no real question. You are not fooling anyone. The attack was entirely preventable. The military had already decoded Japanese communications. They knew where and when the attack was to occur. They just needed to manipulate the public.

I had one person claim that I regard people as dishonest merely for disagreeing with me.

     This is simply not true. There are quite a few people who disagree with me whom I consider honest about their disagreement and their arguments. I consider people to be dishonest when they use dishonest tactics.
     The major players in any "hot button" issue tend to be dishonest. Someone that parrots the talking points of either side in such a debate is likely to be considered dishonest by me. For example, I oppose abortion; but I think the term "pro-life" is just as dishonest as the term "pro-choice." If I find a roach in my home, I am not going to try to preserve that life. But it is life. But, when there is dishonesty, I am more likely to uncover it in someone who disagrees with me, because I am likely to examine his claims more closely. The sad fact is that few people in the abortion debate really start with their own foundational beliefs and argue their own positions. Most people will repeat the talking points, the rhetoric, and the terminology of the camp with which they most closely identify. Here's a tip. If you do not generally use the word "terminate" but instead use the word "kill" in most situations when it comes up, but onthe topic of abortion consistently say "terminate the pregnancy" I am going to detect the insincerity right away.

I find it rather amusing that Norman is complaining about trolls.

     The reason I find it amusing is because Norman is the only internet troll I have encountered. But Norman's standards for calling someone a troll are a little different than mine. I call someone a troll if he regularly attempts to induce emotional responses so that he can tell himself that he is superior to people. Norman calls someone a troll if he dares to disagree with him.
     Recently, Norman has talked about how someone has accused him of blocking scientists (I think on his Twitter account.) He says scientists have better things to do than bother christians with "bad logic." I cannot speak for what scientists do in their spare time. It is not unreasonable to think that some of them would have networking accounts. I do know that Norman denounces sound logic as "bad logic" whenever someone argues coherently against his position. My guess is that he bothered several people (some of whom may have been scientists) that proceeded to reply on his account and he used the names of logical fallacies as a grab bag with which to accuse them; called them various derogatory names; and then blocked them.
     Seriously, there are trolls on the internet. But there aren't that many. If you complain about being inundated by trolls on all sides, the likely reality is that you are the troll.

Norman brags about Slick's dishonesty.

     Norman is bragging about the dishonest tactics of Matt Slick again. He puts it as "arrogant atheists calling in." Of course, previously he talked about "cowardly atheists afraid to call in." Basicly, he can name-call you coming or going.
     In the particular case in question, according to Norman, and atheist caller reasonably called in to point out that there are contradictions in the bible. Everybody have in their head what constitutes a contradiction? I thought so. But Slick, true to his name, could not permit a critic to identify any of the contradictions. His faithful listeners might agree that those were contradictions. It all depends on how fully immunized to criticism of the bible they are. So he used a blocking tactic. He pretended not to know what a contradiction was and asked the caller to define the term. As one can expect, people get frustrated when dealing with the deliberate obtuseness of your typical call-in show host. If you are making a point they don't like, they will not find any definition satisfactory, they will pretend to be confused about what you are trying to present as evidence, they will disconnect you. In short, they will use every trick at their disposal to ensure that your argument is not heard. Now, I don't want you to think that the behavior I described is restricted to christians. This seems to be true of any call-in program. I've heard enough of them. Oh, yes, after they cut you off, they suddenly become coherent and make their point about what you were saying without you able to present your position.
     "If someone wants to debatec challenge, discuss, inquire, or whatever else, go for it. Matt will twist your words, prevent you from speaking and otherwise create illusions to ridicule you."
     Yes, Norman, you have made quite clear the type of person that Slick is. Incidentally, I had to transcribe the above by hand. Your blog prevents direct copying. It is, therefore, possible that some typographical errors may have been introduced. If you wish to prevent transcription errors, allow the tried-and-true copy-paste methods to work.

More christian dishonesty.

     Fundamentalist christians are deceptive. Many of them (far, far too many to be plausible) have a "when I was an atheist" story. Now, Dan has come up with his. I don't believe that Dan was ever an atheist. For that matter, I don't think that he even has an accurate picture of atheists. He invented an element of the story about him and his brother "getting high." I called him on it. He apparently has this image of "atheists" shooting up drugs all day.
     Rather than address the issue that he was caught in a lie because he did not have a valid concept of the people among which he claims he used to be, he feigned indignation and acted like I had accused him of doing drugs. Hey, I don't accuse him of doing anything that is in his story. I think it is complete fiction. But in doing this, he is also exhibiting a point of pride.
     I'd like to talk about this point of pride. Usually, Dan will spout the normal fundamentalist platitudes: "all the glory goes to god," "we are incapable of goodness on our own," "we only have 'christ's' righteousness," etc. By invoking pride, he shows that he does not believe all that nonsense. He is asserting that he was capable of doing good without his god. But, for this one moment, it is more important to him that his audience is distracted from my real accusation (that he has made his story up) and get them thinking that I have made an unreasonable accusation instead (that he made a habit of doing drugs.) He knows that I am on to him and that he can't fool me. His only hope is to get others not to listen to me.

Norman is on his "evolution is racist" kick again.

     And he is so confident that he has the answer to any challenges that... he has turned comments off. What's the matter? Are you afraid that truth might take hold in your mind even though you don't let anyone else see it? Yes, yes, I know. He announced beforehand that he was going to be turning off comments. However, I think he was planning the post in question at the time and he wanted a deflection. He also said that he wasn't going to be posting very often because he had other priorities. And we can see how that turned out.
     Of course, he is also dishonest about the way he supports his claim. Darwin predicted that, over the span of centuries, the more technologically advanced people would wipe out less advanced groups. It's not really an earth-shattering prediction given the tendency of people to try to eliminate the competition. Look at all the people who celebrated the cold-blooded murder of BinLaden. They knew he was nothing but a cheerleader. But he represented the competition. There is no evidence that Darwin was advocating this state of affairs. But Norman pretends this is exactly what he was doing.

What can I say? He's funny.

     Well, Norman is being entertaining again. It would be nice if he could be rational or reasonable. But I suppose we have to take what we can get.
     "It's absurd enough to insult me for using [dishonest sources], but [outsiders] have only emotionally-based insults instead of reasons for disparaging the sources."
     I've pointed out before that Norman's sources continue to make the false claim that Obama was not born in this country despite there being no evidence to that effect and despite the birth certificate which has been presented multiple times that shows that he was born in Hawaii. And this is what his preferred sources continue to post on the main page. However, I seriously doubt that anyone has bothered to insult Norman, himself, on the matter. They have only pointed out that his sources cannot be trusted.
     "The implication is that christian and conservative sources are lying."
     Well, yes, I would say that anyone who continues to claim that Obama was not born in this country (you can think what you will of his policies) is lying. His birth status has been established.
     "In addition the brush-off claim that the sources are lying [even when the lies are exposed outright] is astonishingly stupid."
     You know, for someone who objects to insults, he sure does throw them around a lot.
     "Atheist associations (?) would like nothing better than to shut down 'news organizations' that promote a christian worldview."
     He forgot the quotation marks around "news organizations." I have fixed that here. At any rate, he is correct that there are many people that would like to shut down the christian sites that publish lies and call them "news." There are also many people that would like to shut down the tabloids like "National Enquirer." And it's for basicly the same reason. These sources publish lies. But, let's face it, a lawsuit would only give these liars greater notoriety. And, of course, the christian sources would use the claim of "persecution for their beliefs" as part of a massive fundraising drive.
     "If the sources were lying, lawsuits would be flying left and right, and these agencies would be out of business."
     I believe I've already covered that.
     "Even though we have higher standards than [leftist] rags like the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and the lamestream networks,.... How dumb can you get? How low can you get,...?"
     And, of course, we see more insults. I seem to recall him saying something earlier about only having emotionally-based insults. It would seem that his claim applies more to himself than anyone else.
     "Disparaging sources, especially without even looking at them, is cowardly."
     And yet, that is exactly what he does with the mainstream media.
     "Saying that they cannot be trusted is slander."
     No, true statements are not slander.

Why do fundamentalist christians spread their message?

     Think about it. They aren't really trying to convince anybody. Dan is spouting the nonsense of "repentence comes before knowledge." Norman is perpetually antagonistic, and in denial of reality. Currently, he is claiming that Hitler was not a christian based on an apologetic site that is manufacturing quotes. It's a little like the "deathbed conversions" of atheists only in reverse. A christian says that someone said something that no one can verify. But, understandably, christians don't want Hitler among their ranks.
     Now, some people might simply think that fundamentalists are stupid or crazy. I do not. Oh, I'm sure that those elements exist. But I think there is something more sinister at play. Christians want to be able to tell people "you had your chance." If they presented their message in any plausible manner, they might win converts. And they do not want that. That would take away from the "ha, ha, you missed out" factor. They want outsiders to dismiss them. Now, I still think that they are wrong. But I also think that any god that would support this kind of behavior is evil.

Norman says that whenever he hears about atheists they are up to mischief.

     Of course, he doesn't rely on any actual news sources. Instead, he uses something that may as well be called "wehateatheists.com." And the group is so out of touch with reality that they are still saying that Obama wasn't born in this country.

I like the idea...

     I like the idea presented in this comic. Unfortunately, it won't work. As it currently stands, people already rate comments with which they don't agree "unconstructive," "unhelpful," "useless," or whichever term is used for the purpose. Alternately, if they like something, they will rate "woo, this is the ACE!!!!1111ONE!!1!1!" as "constructive." Spammers would, sadly, just mimic this behavior. Ultimately, no one who wasn't selling garbage would be able to get in.

Capitalism is great...

     Well, capitalism is great for anyone who can shut his doors, isolate himself from the outside world and still feed and clothe his family. If you have a farm and the skills to work it and can feed and clothe yourself and your family, businesses can't really force you into an unfavorable contract. If you have sufficient money and investments, you're good to go.
     The problem with capitalism comes when people need an outside income to be able to sustain themselves. Then you get business owners who tell them that if they don't want to work for starvation wages, there are plenty of others who will. It really is a type of duress.
     Capitalism needs to be tempered just enough so that everyone can feel safe in saying "no." to a bad deal. Otherwise, you have a type of de facto slavery.

Ah, Norman, lying again.

     He likes to fancy himself as educating people, but let that pass. At any rate, he has recently put up part of a screen shot of mine and falsely claimed that it exhibited argument from silence. It did not. The assertion of mine is that christians, like Norman, are willing to lie, cheat, steal, kill, etc. to further their ends. I also informed him that if he deleted my comment it would imply that christians, like himself, do this. But this isn't because of an arguement from silence, a false dilemma, or any other logical fallacy. It is because, by deleting my comment, he exhibited the very behavior of which I accused him. In other words, his deletion of my comment implied that he agreed with the charge whether or not I pointed it out. My pointing it out merely gave him the chance to reconsider. I'm like that.
     Now, Norman says that I was trying to manipulate him. I suppose a case could be made for that. One could argue that I was trying to manipulate him into honest discession by giving him a disincentive to engage in his normal behavior of suppressing everything that doesn't kiss his -- ahem -- feet. The fact is that if he remotely believed his lies about me, he would let all my comments stand. He would think that they portray precisely the image into which he wishes to cast all non-christians. The fact that he doesn't and even edits my screen capture to prevent anyone from seeing what he doesn't want them to see speaks volumes about his real beliefs.
     I also find it amusing that he uses the example of a bully saying "if you don't meet me where I say, you are scared." Well, I can admit that I have been scared of bullies. The fact is that the bully in his example is actually making a true statement. The manipulation comes from the fact that people don't want to admit that they are scared. Since it is Norman's analogy, we may reasonably conclude that he agreed with my assessment of christians, but doesn't want to admit it.

About free speech rights

     One blogger claims that free speech rights are being lost because a distraught father filed a police report, the policeman took the opportunity to criticize the man's daughter, and the policeman faces the prospect of being fired. Well, I've got news. Free speech rights have never protected you from being fired for saying something the boss didn't like while on the job. More importantly, a police officer's job is not to increase the distress of those who come for help.

It would appear that christians and atheists each prefer to have their own echo chambers.

     I recently noticed this post. In it, Paule Baird is criticizing the use of valueless sound bites against the christian faith as it makes atheists appear indistinguishable from christians. He overlooks what I consider an important point. For the most part, atheists are indistinguishable from christians. They don't come to their belief from a careful examination of the evidence. They base their belief on what is convenient and/or comforting to them or they just take the word of a trusted authority and they only look at differring beliefs for the express purpose of "showing how they are wrong." They pay no real attention to what is being said.
     Paul was attacked by other atheists for the simple reason that he did not show 100 percent unwavering loyalty to the cause. That is, he questioned the method used as ineffective. He's right, of course. It is ineffective. Anyone not already in one of the respective camps will recognize it as mindless propaganda -- something with which I am only too familiar. But, in levelling the criticism, he revealed that he was not following like a sheep. And this is just as intolerable in atheist circles as it is in christian circles.

It seems a lot of people are upset about the Casey Anthony verdict.

     Many people want to know how the jury could find Casey Anthony innocent. Well, first off, they didn't. That is a common confusion with our justice system. Personally, I think that juries should have three options for a verdict, "guilty," "not guilty," and "innocent." I also think that in the event of an "innocent" verdict, the prosecution should be held personaly responsible for any damages caused to the accused -- even if or especially if the defendant was indicted by a grand jury. If there were the actual verdict of "innocent" available, the "not guilty" verdict might not have left such a sour taste in the jurors' mouths.

I would like to take some time...

     I would like to take some time on this day in which we celebrate the freedoms that we don't really have to talk about the issue.
     A lot of people say that the government is us. That is simply not true -- except for the people who can afford to buy the politicians. We, the members of the general population do not really get a voice in government. I am quite aware of the elections in which one can vote for the red puppet or the blue puppet. But the puppeteer remains the same in any event. The courts havfe ruled essentially that the general public has no recourse when cheated by the big businesses and has also ruled that big business can use its vast wealth to silence any opposition.

Americans and History

     I have seen a lot op people lately complaining about the fact that Americans don't seem to remember history very well. And it is quite true. But, then, these same people think of history in terms of nothing more than names and dates. That's right. They single out the least important part and treat it as though it were the whole thing.
     It is simply not that important that the date on which Mr. Hancock signed the Daclaration of Independence was 4 Jul 1776. It would not make a significant difference if it were signed a year earlier, a year later, or at some other time of year. It wouldn't even matter if the names of the people involved were different. What is important is that the colonists were fed up with what they saw as oppressive treatment and decided to take the risk involved in taking up arms against the established regime. The events that unfolded and the reasons why people took the actions they did are the true lessons of history. Learning a bunch of names and dates is missing the point.

I think I'd like to talk about the Loughner case briefly

     As you may know, Loughner has been ruled currently mentally incompetent and unfit to stand trial. But they're working on fixing that. However, I have read that the witnesses agree that he was completely insane at the time of the event and want him restored so that he "has no excuse." Well, if you will excuse me, I would like to give a different perspective
     Suppose that you had lost control of your actions for a time. The madness had taken over. It's like another being controlling your body. During this time your body (over which you have no control) is used to commit attrocities that sicken you and that you would never do if you had the power to prevent them. Finally, medical professionals manage to cast out this other being (spirit, demon if you will.) But this is not because they want to restore you to a normal life in which you are a useful member of society again. They don't care about that. It's just that beings like that can't be punished according to our legal code and, since yours is the body that was used, they want to make you a scapegoat so that you can be punished for the rest of your life for things over which you had no control.
     That, of course, is a nightmare scenario. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. But, unfoirtunately, there are a lot of people who would wish it on the defendant. Quite frankly, since they aren't going to restore him to a normal life like he would have had without the madness, there is really no point to restore him to a punishable state.

Rhomphaia cannot answer a question.

     As you can see, she just has Norman lie about its contents. I asked Rhomphaia, if Norman has the "non-christians playbook" as she claims, why does he keep setting up strawmen. She couldn't answer the question, so she deleted it and had Norman claim that I insulted him. Well, pointing out that he uses strawmen when he uses strawmen is not an insult. And there is nothing else there that can rationally be interpreted as an insult. Of course, the key word here could be rationally. Perhaps they are inventing something out of their imaginations.

EDIT:



     I find it rather amusing that he says that lies will not be tolerated when he is the one lying and deleting posts to cover it up.

Whistleblowers

     I recently read an article about procedures for encouraging employees that work for companies actively engaging in fraud to blow the whistle. Rather unsurprisingly, the two Republicans voted to require the employees to notify their bosses prior to any contact with the authorities. This would give the company the opportunity to fire the "troublemaker" and then say that he was just making the accusations because he was a disgruntled ex-worker. Fortunately, the two Democrats and one Independent did not go along with that. Securities fraud does not happen by accident. It is done deliberately. And confronting a powerful criminal before notifying the authorities is foolish.

Rhomphaia is writing about the "gay agenda"

     Below is my response.


     For homosexuals to proselytize straights they would have to be trying to recruit them into becoming homosexual -- something that would be about as effective as recruiting people to have brown eyes.
     But, instead, you object to them having the agenda of wanting to be treated as normal people rather than targets for persecution (e.g. people that you can drag down the freeway tied behind your pickup truck.) You will excuse me if I do not fault anyone for having an agenda like that.

EDIT:

     Rhomphaia now objects to my bringing up the persecution that homosexuals experience and which drives their agenda. After all, she said nothing about the persecution or the violence. Below is my response.


     "There was nothing in there AT ALL about taking any rights from homos"
     "in which he admits homosexual activists do want to 'recruit' children to accept homosexual behavior as normal."
     Well, you consistently clamor that your rights are being taken away and say you need to be able to present your faith as "normal." I rather sense a double-standard. And it is true. You never once mentioned the violence that is a direct result of homosexuals being regarded as "not normal." But since that spurs them to their agenda, and you are talking about and condemning that agenda, it is an important point.
     So, no, you talked about their seeking normal treatment as though it came out of thin air, you never once mentioned the horrors that they face every single day in not being treated as normal. They are currently treated as objects of persecution. They want to be treated as normal. You object to their efforts in being treated as normal. Of course, mentioning the persecution makes your position look bad, so you don't mention it.


     Oh, by the way, I did gloss over your fellow believer "playing homosexual" to say that he was trying to recruit people into homosexual behavior. I do this in much the same way as I gloss over your fellow believers when they say they are/were atheists who really believe in your god but are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. It is not a lack of reading comprehension that induces me to reject christian propaganda. The fact is that you cannot turn someone homosexual and you cannot turn someone straight. It just doesn't work that way. And they already tried hiding; that didn't work out very well.


Rhomphaia:

     I do not doubt that this fellow is a real person. I also do not doubt that the article you quote exists. However, I do already know that "homosexuality is a choice" and "they're trying to turn our children into homosexuals" are bits of christian propaganda. They have been so for quite some time. And neither one is true.
     As for your claim that the original article is on a "homosexual site," I can dismiss it out of hand because you have shown that you only turn to christian sites for references. That explains why CBN is the only recognizable source that you give me. The others are all christian apologetics that I have never heard before. It is possible that someone set up a site to pretend to be a christian site. I have similarly seen sites that pretend to be christian sites that "admit that christianity is deceiving the world." But you would not appreciate any of that being brought up as "true admissions from christianity."
     An inconvenient fact for you is that I don't lie. You like to claim that I am a liar; but it is simply not true. As for the opportunities to have a straightforward discussion, you offer none. The phrase "This post has been removed by a blog administrator" says it all. If you were offering any such opportunity, my posts, which have never violated any of your stated rules, would never have been removed. It really is as simple as that.
     You accuse me of fighting with hype and emotionalism. But quite frankly, that is what you are doing with "they're trying to recruit our children."

Rhomphaia is now cheering that Moscow is banning "gay pride" parades

     Yes, yes, I know she actually had her "cat's paw" make that post. But as she give her full endorsement to everything he writes, The cheers are just as much from Rhomphaia.
     I wonder if she also cheers the muslims for their similar stance. Seriously, has she even considered that the primary reason Moscow doesn't allow the parades is because it fails to worship the state? Now, I realize that she considers homosexuals to be less than human. She is just celebrating another aspect of hate. Still, if you are going to have respect for human life, you can't pick and choose which people qualify as "human."

Why I do not capitalize certain words that christians want to see capitalized

     Simply put, it would be a lie for me to give such capitalizations. The capitalization of these words is based on the concept of worship for the biblical god. For me to capitalize those words would be an implicit statement that I thought the biblical god worthy of such worship. I do not. And, please, let's leave behind the excuses for why it would be "grammatically necessary" to capitalize those words. The word "he" does not become a proper noun just because it refers to your preferred god. I am not being disrespectful if I treat your god the way I (and you) treat all others.
     The purpose of language is communication. My refusal to capitalize a word that does not warrant capitalization (despite a long tradition of an improper capitalization) does not impede communication -- aside from your taking an unwarranted offense. Randomly capitalizing letters in the middle of words does impede communication. The brain gets stuck because it expects the capital letters to be at the beginning of words or (for emphasis) fully capitalized throughout a word. And yet christians like to make that false analogy. Grammar rules reflect the way people write and speak, not the other way around. Customs and traditions ultimately have a source. And, when I must reject the source, I also reject the tradition. The source of capitalizing words that refer back to your god (as most nouns and adjectives identifying a religion do) is a desire to enforce special honor for your god. Your god warrants no special honor. I would be engaging in an implicit lie if I were to "go along to get along." I can't do it, not in good conscience.

I do NOT like Windows 7.

     They took away the ability of a DOS box to be full screen. They removed my favorite text-editor for DOS/Windows. (That would be EDIT.EXE.) They took away DEBUG.EXE. Essentially, all the utilities that made the system more useful to someone like me have been removed. I realize that the primary target audience consists of imbeciles. But you can still include the useful utilities. They won't notice.

     The following comment goes here.


     "Cameron speaking out like that could make some angry with him."
     But none of them supply him with income. His bottom line is safe.
     "Many who earn their living in the "Christian industry" are quite poor."
     Perhaps. I'm sure the people who clean the office floors don't make a lot of money. But the people who make television and film appearances for the "ministries" do.

Norman:

     "Here's more 'tolerance', the leftist 'Media Matters' is pressuring advertisers to drop Fox News because they are a 'political operation masquerading as a news network'"

     Such "pressure" is complete nonsense. Advertisers don't care whether a publication is a news medium or not. They care whether their advertising dollars drive sales. A group called "Media Matters" may, indeed, be trying to apply such "pressure." But it is as useless as telling someone not to drive his car because it can't go to the moon. It's not the point.



Note: The above is not a verbatim transcription of the comment I had previously as, there being no valid reason to delete it, I did not preserve a copy. I am reconstructing it from memory as best I can. The flavor and character, however, are the same. I do find it interesting that Norman complains of cheap shots and name-calling, which I did not use, when he calls a network "MSLSD." I find him to be quite hypocritical.

EDIT:

     As Norman is deleting comments that do not violate any stated rules, I will give a screenshot of another comment he will likely delete.

About the return to earlier borders

     Of course Israel wasn't going to go for it. Israel doesn't recognize the rights of Arabs to exist any more than Arabs recognize the right of Israel to exist. That was the whole point in putting up the settlements to begin with. The Israelis, however, are a little more savvy politically. If they were to announce their intentions, they would only receive support from the followers of John Hagee and the like.

The best way to keep your personal files secret

     Okay, and now my answer. The best way to keep your personal files secret is to keep them on an isolated system that no one else uses. That means no internet.

Government secrecy vs. government accountability

     There are some instances when it is justified for the government to keep secrets. Plans for future military operations that they want to keep out of the hands of potentially invading forces springs to mind. However, the government is theoretically supposed to be accountable to the people. When the government keeps things secret because they cast a negative light on its actions, it prevents any such accountability. The clamp-down on information surrounding the Bin Laden affair is just such a situation. This gives them time to concoct an "official story" that looks better than the reality. Hey, maybe they will say that he ordered attacks just minutes before his death. It already slipped that, had word not gotten out that Bin Laden was unarmed, the "official story" would have been that the mission was to capture him but that they had to kill him before he gunned them down. In other words, the government was going to lie to us.
     On the other hand, there was an (unknown) real mastermind behind the attacks. It wouldn't take much for him to order attacks in the days following Bin Laden's death. After all, he is presumably alive and well. Over the coming years, there may be many attacks somehow "ordered just before Bin Laden died." And the public will eat it up. It doesn't make it true, though.
     Another blogger actually wants more secrecy, rather than less. She thinks that at first no information should have been let out beyond "we got him!" Then, later, they could have presented the official lie that they were planning. Of course, she also asked what the big deal was that he was unarmed. Well the big deal is that, were they real soldiers, or Navy SEALS, they could have brought him back alive to stand trial. A police officer is not supposed to go around shooting unarmed suspects that he doesn't like. He is supposed to do everything in his power to bring suspects to trial. Now, a rogue officer will gun down innocent men and make excuses. And this is exactly what we see happening. Excuses are being made for why he could not be captured when clearly he could. And these excuses are being made after they make sure that no information can get out to contradict the "official story."

One thing that annoys me about Microsoft Windows

     Strictly speaking, there are several things that annoy me about Microsoft Windows. But I'm only going to talk about one of them today. When you insert a CD-ROM or USB drive that contains a file that Windows recognizes, Windows wants to open it right away. Now, I personally usually have other ideas. For example, I might be copying a file of my very own from one computer to another using the auxiliary drive as an intermediate. And an executable that I create (yes, that's a file type Windows recognizes) might not really be set up to run off of a USB drive.

Here's something to think about.

     What is the best way to keep your personal files secret? Note that this refers to the files that only you personally need access to. Files which must be shared between several users would use other mechanisms.

     By the way: Norman is trying so hard to convince me that he is ignoring me that he forgot that he wasn't going to allow any off-topic comments to be published on his blog. He used another sock-puppet to tell himself that I and another person were being "juvenile." A hint to Norman: You are the only one that used that particular insult; and you failed to have the sock-puppet identify the individual who criticized Farmville. If you were truly ignoring the people you claim to be ignoring, you could never have identified the critic in a subsequent post.

     As to the main question: Yes, I do have an answer. I plan on posting it sometime over the coming week. However, I would like people to think about it.

EDIT:

     It seems than Norman has removed the entire post in which he made the off-topic comment to himself. Oh, well, it's not like his supporter is going to call him on it.

     My mistake. It's still there.

Remember, security depends on you.

     Okay, security training is making its rounds at work again. Those of you who have experienced it know what I'm talking about. I especially like the part where you have to choose a password that is impossible to remember from one day to the next (they word it differently) and are not supposed to write it down. (Half of the office has Post-It notes with their passwords on them.)
     I like an analogy. A store could have a safe with 2-ft thick steel walls and a protocol for opening the door that took ten minutes for legitimate access. But if the workers have to get in there ten times a day or more, I can guarantee that the door is going to get propped open. Yes, I understand the importance of security. But the designers of these systems need to understand that it should not be an obstacle to doing one's job.

Norman is agaain claiming that he is only "giving back what he gets."

     In other words, he is lying. I still remember my first encounter. That was on Dan's blog. I also not that, before Rhomphaia became so enamored of Norman, she said that I seemed a lot more civil with Dan than I did with Norman. There is a reason for this. I am hostile only to those who instigate the hostility. Norman knows this. He knows full well that he is an instigator. I am not interested in how he treats christians posing as atheists for the sole purpose of pretending he is not an instigator. Instead, I would ask all non-christians to consider how he treats them. His first comment to me, and the first time I saw him at all, was filled with venom. He can't have been "giving back" anything, because I had never addressed him before.

EDIT:

     It's amazing how upset he is and saying I'm giving the delete button a workout, when the reason you don't see my comments on his blog is because he pre-screens and deletes them. Then he can say "Prove it, prove you made a comment. Do you have a screen capture with the comment showing as posted?" knowing full well that it is impossible to have such evidence with someone who prescreens and deletes them.
     Remember, Norman, if you want to see your comments stay here, you have to allow mine through on your blog. I'm making no secret that I am hiding your comments. You earned it. And, if you want to convince people that you are civil, try being civil with me. You can start with the fact that my screen name is Pvblivs, something you haven't used yet. And when I first dealt with you, I did call you by your preferred screenname. But then, you probably don't want your comments to return here. I didn't exactly delete them. They're hidden. But I can restore them.

Note to Norman:

     I allow multiple disagreeing commenters. However, as long as you persist in your display of power over on your blog, I will hide all comments you make no matter what sock-puppet you use. Got it?

Okay, now the officials admit that Bin Laden was unarmed.

     Now they are saying that he made "threatening moves." I'm sure they were very threatened by someone throwing up his hands and saying "I surrender." No one was trying to capture him. They wanted him dead. After all, they knew he was just a face. If they had a public trial it would come out undeniably that he was as clueless as anyone and couldn't have been behind any attacks. Then people would realize that the government was wasting massive amounts of time and money on this guy.

Must be a slow news day

     Today all the media seemed to want to talk about was the fact that some men in uniform (I refuse to call them "soldiers") killed Bin Laden. We are talking about a defenseless old man who never posed a threat himself. He was a cheerleader for anti-NATO actions; and that's it. He did not plan strategies. He did not select targets. He cheered when things blew up. As a result, he is nothing more than a face to attach to the two minutes of hate. I have no use for hate. So, now there will probably be more attacks. After all, we've managed to create a martyr. We have done what Bin Laden could never hope to do while alive -- make the U.S. look like a country who seeks out and murders critics. The best thing would have been to let him die of old age. Nothing to rally around there. And it's not like having him alive gave our adversaries any military advantage. They can be just as effective without him as they were with him. Perhaps more so. Now they have a "cause of righteousness."

There he goes again

     Norman is talking about "dictator Obama" again. Here's a hint. Obama is not the one who said "I'm the decider." I get that Norman dislikes unions. After all, they probably forced his daddy to pay his workers a living wage -- something the idle rich don't like.

EDIT:

     I am unable to find a direct article corresponding to Norman's latest claims. That would be an original news story not an editorial. In fact, all I can find are opinion pieces from groups that are so right-wing that they would call Reagan a leftist.

     Oh, he is so cute when he is trying to claim that Fox News is not a right-wing organization. Okay, stating a truth is not a logical fallacy. In fact, to have a logical fallacy you need something that is drawing at least a partial conclusion in an argument that claims to be logical. As for "stupid": I would suggest that anyone who does not regard Fox News as a right-wing organization is either stupid or has been living in the equivalent of a cave for the last 20 years. According to Fox News, the Republicans are always right and the Democrats are always wrong. It's not like their bias is subtle.

About the "birther" issue:

     Fox News (a decidedly right-wing organization) has posted this article. I thought I would point out a few things.
     "While the White House has been quick to complain about the media's role in the birther issue, the presidential candidate other than Trump who has brought up the issue most often recently is Obama..." [Emphasis added]
     Okay, who can name a presidential candidate other than Obama and Trump? Me neither, although Nader is a possibility. The White House has, indeed, complained about the media (especially conservative media) harping on the birther non-issue. But the Fox News claim is technically accurate. None of the members of those media are presidential candidates. And so, it is true, out of the two people included in the group of presidential candidates, Obama brings it up second-most often. Some of us would point out that, among that same group, he brings it up least often.
     "The so-called long-form certificate had become the central issue for many of the so-called birthers, and for Donald Trump, who is mulling over a presidential bid and had said it was possible that Obama was pulling 'one of the great cons in the history of politics.' The state of Hawaii uses a 'short form' as a certified birth certificate, and Obama had to ask for a waiver to get the longer form released. The long form showed what the short firm did: Obama was born in Honolulu."
     As you'll recall, Trump was lying that Obama was hiding something by not releasing the "long form." Okay, quick, how many of you have access to the "long form" of your own birth certificates? Well, unless I have readers that work in the appropriate records offices, the answer is zero. Even Trump can't get his "long form" and he knows it. I can only surmise that Trump was hoping that Obama could not pull the necessary strings to get his released.
     "Obama's choice to personally involve himself in a controversy that, until recently, was driven by fringe websites and talk-radio rants..."
     And that would include the very site from which this quote is pulled.

     Okay, look, like Obama, hate Obama, fine, whatever. But everyone involved has known that Obama was a native-born citizen throughout this whole mess.

The "love" of the christian god.

     Norman really should take his own object lessons. He does so many of the things he criticizes others for. Then again, I suppose that's normal. One faults most in others the things he sees in himself but does not like.

     Okay, main point. Christians tend to accuse outsiders of "suppressing the truth" or "rebelling" against their god. They don't have a tendency to provide any evidence for this position. But I have seen the accusation made time and time again.
     Now, most non-christians, including myself, believe the christian god to be fictional. But, if I believed he existed, there would be cause for rebellion. According to christian theology, people are to submit to him like a wife to her husband. I am aware of the fight for women's rights. Christianity, however, was invented in another time. I remembered a song that illustrated just exactly what kind of "husband" the christian god really is.

Examining the witnesses to the resurrection

     One of the admins on the Queen Queequeg blog claims that a former magistrate has examined the witnesses to the resurrection. This sounds like an incredible feat as it was my understanding that they were both unidentifiable and deceased. However, bring them in; I would like to cross-examine them. Now, let me explain why a cross-examination is important. A corrupt prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict anyone he wants. How? Because he can massage the "evidence" as presented to the grand jury and no one is allowed to cross-examine his witnesses. Here we have someone who already wants to convince people that the resurrection was real performing a rather dubious direct examination. I would like the opportunity to cross.

Making gods not to exist "by definition"

     One atheist (at least one) has decided that it is not enough that there is no evidence for alleged supernatural beings. He is stating that any such being, if found, would be natural by definition and therefore not a god. Quite frankly, I think that this is worse than useless. It gives validity to the common christian claim that non-believers are "closed to the evidence." I am open to actual evidence in favor of their god. I just haven't seen any. If I ever do see such evidence, I will not play games stating that "the multiverse or anything outside the world we can see is just natural anyway." The natural embodies the world that we currently see. And there might be an outside of that. By standard definitions, any such outside would be supernatural or at least extranatrual. The term "natural" was not intended to mean "everything that exists" and should not be so redefined. It may happen that it, in fact, encompasses everything that exists. But if it does, it will not be by virtue of saying "found it, therefore it is natural."

Remember. Friends don't let friends use Macintosh.

     It's been a while since I've used any product made by Apple. The most recent I've used being the Apple //c. When they decided they wanted to lock down their machines so that regular people couldn't write software for them, I decided I didn't want to have anything to do with their machines. Linux always has and always will come with a compiler and assembler built in. (You need them to install new software. The same source will work on different versions of Linux. But the same binaries won't.) For Windows, Microsoft out of the goodness of its heart because there are other compilers and assemblers available for free, offers a fully functional compiler and assembler at no charge -- although they would prefer that you upgrade to one that you actually pay them for. Before that, DEBUG allowed the writing of programs. Even if it wasn't particularly convenient.

Oh, wow, just look at Norman's latest post

     The post is here, by the way. Any more extreme and he would have his "atheists" say something like "we atheists are horrible people; all the readers should become christian." As a practical matter, I do not expect to find anyone who is not playing a straw-man of his opponent to endorse trolling openly on a public forum. It reminds me of those television adverts in which a spokesman for "Brand X" is continually bad-mouthing "his own product." I don't know. Maybe the gimmick works on people. But that's just what it is -- a gimmick.

Norman vs. reasonable requirements

     In a recent blogpost, Norman copied the comic from this webpage and said that he liked it. Well, I rather like that particular comic myself. However, it would appear that he is violating the terms of the Creative Commons license by which you may reprint it. The conditions are simple: Your use must be non-commercial (I think he actually meets this condition.) You must attribute the work to the author (his name is Randall Munroe, but a link to his website would have worked -- Norman failed to attribute.) You must identify the license terms (he apparently couldn't be bothered.)
     Oh, by the way, this is also a good comic by the same person. I wonder what the chances that he will risk letting his readers see that one.

Thank you to unions

     Now, I do not personally work in a union shop, as what I do is office work. But I do know that, absent unions, all workers would be looking at no holidays, no vacation, you get sick you're out of a job, no job safety, working 89+ hours a week for $2/week, and so on. Union workers fought hard for things we take for granted today. And if unions were ever to be disabled, those rights would go away very quickly. Some people think that unions and collective bargaining are not needed any more. That is simply not true. Union and collective bargaining will be needed until such as all workers can feel safe in walking out on a job should they be treated unfairly. That is, as long as walking out on a job carries the likelihood of starvation and homelessness, unions will be needed. Because in individual bargaining the boss basically has the worker over a barrel.

Well, it looks like I owe Dan an apology.

     Some months ago, I forget how long exactly, I accused Dan of removing comments that he found inconvenient. When he restored comments, I thought that he was marking comments as spam himself so they would be available when people called him on it (which they were doing. Dan said that Blogger was sending them to spam and that he had nothing to do with it. I didn't believe him. At the time, I was going on the best evidence available to me as Blogger did not seem to have a habit of doing that and christians do seem to have a habit of making excuses.
     However, today, I see new evidence. It appears that Blogger can delete comments automatically like that (without posting 20 comments in a 5-minute period to get one deletion.) Alex has no reason to come to Dan's defense and probably didn't even know about the accusation. I must therefore accept the new evidence and where it leads.


Dan:

     I apologize. I accused you in error. And for that I am sorry.

What would convince me that the biblical god was real

     A lot of christians claim that I am closed to the evidence of christianity. Quite frankly, I don't see any evidence to support christianity. Look, I can be convinced with appropriate evidence. If it were spelled out in the stars, I would believe. Let me give you an example of what I am talking about.



     I remember one christian provided a recording of a program in which a non-christian identified just that kind of evidence. However the host, Slick, kept twisting it to try the claim that what was sought was playing connect-the-dots with the stars wo that he could say the evidence was already there. Slick was very skilled at the con-job. But it doesn't make the evidence actually sought any more present.

On the Queen Queequeg blog

     I submitted that the only reason why any comment has been deleted is because it exposed a truth that the administrators found inconvenient. If you go to check, you will find that Norman has deleted the comment, proving me right, and is apparently pretending I said something entirely different. Well, I am not afraid of letting my readers come to their own conclusions. And so I ask you, does anyone think that any comment has been removed from that blog for a good reason.

Abuse of power (weblog style)

     Norman seems pretty clear in that he plans to have "rules for comments" but has no intention of following his own rules. He makes the excuse that police officers are allowed to break the speed limit. But consider, they are only supposed to be allowed to do that in very limited circumstances. Under normal circumstances, law enforcement is supposed to uphold a higher standard than the rest of the citizenry. Unfortunately, reality doesn't always work that way. And there are people that abuse their power.
     I suppose I should consider myself fortunate that the only power Norman has to abuse is that of weblog administrator. Still, I will call him out on his abuse.

UPDATE:


     Here is Norman making excuses for future deletions and my response. Readers can make their own determinations.

To Rhomphaia:

     In this post, you claim that you disallow comments because you "know [people] don't really have an answer.] But I submit, it's because you know we do. Alex has already addressed you point by point. I shall be more general.
     I do not ask you to believe anything on an authority. I would hope that you would form your beliefs based on evidence. An authority would simply be someone dictating what you are "supposed" to believe. And that is the position that you have given for your god, except that you have to let other people tell you what he has "told you" to believe.

Another post about Norman.

     In this thread, Norman relays a story and probably envisions himself as "Patches." I think his actions are more in keeping with the lynch mob. The facts, as anyone can verify by reviewing his blog and comments that he makes on other blogs, are that he is quick to accuse and belittle anyone who dares to disagree with him. He frequently claims that the has submitted proof positive of his accusations (on some unknown former occasion.) And yet, I have never seen him present any actual evidence to back his claims up. The closest I saw him come was backlinking to another blog post of his where he had made the same accusations without evidence. Where he has the power, he is in the habit of making regular deletions of comments that he doesn't like. The reasons he gives are flimsy at best and I do not believe they are true. But the reader may judge for himself.

An annoying message box

     Gee, is there anything else Microsoft wants, like, say, my source code files so that they more easily steal my efforts and call them their own? No, I don't want to send an error report. I am quite aware that, as I write my program, I will encounter errors. That's what debuggers are for -- so that I can fix them. I do not want to send Microsoft any information about my program until it is finished.

Some comments that Norman has deleted

     Incidentally, these comments were not directed to his blog. He usurped the authority to delete legitimate comments on a blog where the owner extended him the privilege of making his own primary posts.

Norman:

     No, you don't have to babysit. This is (supposedly) Rhomphaia's blog. And it is her place, not yours, to decide what comments fit the rules. I submit that the comment you deleted followed all the rules and was only off-topic in that it responded to your own off-topic comment. It's easy to make a false conviction when you are able to block the defense from speaking.


Norman:

     Contrary to your assertion, I do not claim that everyone who disagrees with me is a sock puppet. I do claim that the various accounts which all exhibit your style of writing are. There are people other than you who disagree with me. But you use a multitude of accounts. I make very few claims about people being crazy or evil. But I do note that you do not shy away from making such claims yourself.
     "We do have the right to make rules whether you like it or not."
     And we have reason to cry foul when you delete posts that do not violate your stated rules and you pretend they do. Quite frankly, I think Miss Goose should revoke your administrative privileges. But, by now, you have probably become the primary owner of the blog.
     The posts which you deleted did not violate your stated rules. (I happened to see Alex's before your got to it.) But I suppose that you can rely on the fact that supporters won't know the difference. After all, they won't see the oriinal to test against your stated claim. Your abuse of power can go unchecked.


     This is supposedly Rhomphaia's blog, not Norman's. However, Norman seems to be making two (or more) sets of rules. There is the set of rules he claims overtly and will lie and say people violated when he deletes their comments. Then there are the rules he keeps to himself about why he deletes the comments, likely involving being inconvenient to his lies. I say "or more" because one can argue that he has a third, less restrictive, set for himself (and his supporters, insofar as they exist.)
     He likes to accuse me of "whining." But I submit that he does not believe it to be so. If he really believed that I was whining, he would let my comments stand, as it would inspire others to ignore me without his interference. Instead he tells people not to listen to anything I may have said and just take his word that I was "whining." It may be effective; but it is deceptive


     Now, technically, I'm jumping the gun on that last one, as I've just posted it and he hasn't had opportunity to delete it yet. But does anyone want to lay any bets?

UPDATE:

     "If you had not answered him, it was going away. He is being recalcitrant and only interested in causing trouble"
     Rough translation: I was trying to prevent you from seeing that. Christians who scrutinize their faith too closely tend to lose it.

     Somehow, this got put in the wrong post.

Apparently my last response was too powerful for "please convince me" and they felt the need to delete it

     Here is the thread. I shall try to recompose the thoughts of my response as best I can.

     "I hope you really don’t think that a reasonably intelligent person, let alone a perfect one, would be unable to see what is at play. Just because words can be strung together does not prevent the sentence from being incoherent."
     That's true enough. I can string words together like "rook sea shape fat penguin" and it won't mean anything. But the statement I proposed does not suffer from that problem. It has a clear meaning.
     "A statement that is contradictory, incoherent or circular simply proves that reason is operating."
     My statement is not contradictory nor is it incoherent. And it is not really meaningful for a statement to be circular.
     "Your Rubik’s cube example does not help your argument."
     The Rubik's cube itself is only a backdrop. The point was that a particular text was meaningful and useful to me, but "meaningless" to someone else. Individual limitation may prevent someone from seeing the meaning. I highlighted a specific example to prevent a claim of an empty assertion.
     "Saying that 'God truly knows that this statement is not true but therefore true' is not something we dwell on because we can’t solve it."
     But, of course, I never said anything like that. I said that if he does not believe it to be true then it is true but he doesn't know it. You see, I am not introducing a contradiction. I am exposing one. I said at the beginning that omniscience was inherently inconsistent. And, if you remove the assumption of omniscience, all the contradictions go away. The contradictions only come into play when you modify my statement to claim that your god cannot have made an error. The statement is a simple one about the set of beliefs of a proposed being. Either the statement is among those beliefs and is thus false, or it is not there and is true. Either way, there is a truth that your god does not know.

     Ultimately, credit must go to Kurt Gödel. He was the one who proved that any sufficiently advanced system must have statements that it can express but cannot resolve or be an inconsistent system. You cannot have a collection of all and only true statements, because for any given collection <X>, the statement "This statement is not part of collection <X>." is reasonable, but the collection will be wrong about it.


UPDATE:

     My response is back. Perhaps it was just hidden so that someone checking would give up before it was restored. I'm just guessing, of course.

Blogger gave me some brief trouble with my account.

     I can only guess that it was because no phone number was connected with the account. It is my understanding that phone numbers are a recent requirement to Blogger accounts. But I was hoping that, since my account already existed, that I wouldn't have to mess with it.

Norman claims:

     As you can see above, Norman claims that he will be deleting "personal attacks." Personally, I think he is going to use it to delete comments he finds inconvenient. I have seen him take simple honest disagreement and call it a "personal attack." I have also seen him engage in personal attacks and say they were nothing of the kind.

Does saying "April Fool's" make something less of a lie?

     I realize that April Fool's jokes have become accepted in modern culture -- although there are limits. But really, does it make it any less of a lie?

What is conservatism?

     I thought that I would present the position of the conservatives to the best of my observations. This would be my assessment of their beliefs and what I think they would say if they thought it safe to do so.


     When will these leftists get it? Workers are not real people. They are a tool to be used to get some work done. If my hammer breaks, I throw it out and get a new one. That's the way it should be for workers. And that's the way it was before the **** unions came along. Instilling such nonsense as "living wage," "safe working conditions," and "break periods." All these things directly affect my bottom line. I don't want to pay for safe working conditions. A full crate drops on a worker, putting him out of commission, why should I have to pay him while he's not working. It's cheaper just to get a new worker. But, no, those commies came up with OSHA, MSHA, and workman's comp.
     Things have gotten ridiculous. Soon they'll want me to pay my guard dog at least minimum wage and give cats the right to vote. Those liberals need all the help they can get. They know no real people would ever vote for their commie policies. If I can get workers to put in 14 hours a day, 6 days a week for 5 bucks, no stinkin' government bureaucrat should be tellin' me no. That's what's wrong with America these days. Too many people crying about "worker's rights." Well, workers have the right to work in my factory until they drop dead from exhaustion. And there's plenty more where they came from.

Untitled

     This article is significant. This nation needs to stop treating the working class as a disposable commodity.

Norman's "civility"

     Norman claims to be civil to people that he is not "giving as good as he gets" to. Well, the above image is someone's first encounter with Norman and you can see Norman's venom. And this is to another christian. Assuming he doesn't delete the post, it is an embarassment, you can find it here.
     Now, my personal guess is that this other christian doesn't agree with Norman's "I'm looking forward to laughing at all the non-christians in hell" style. At any rate, Norman is showing his typical reaction for whenever someone suggests that he is less than perfect. It would be fitting if he got to hear the famous line "depart from me, I never knew you." Oh, I don't think it's real. But it would be fitting for him anyway.

Silence implies agreement

     That is a generally accepted principle. There are exceptions, of course -- notably when that silence is coerced. However, if I choose not to object to a particular claim, then it may reasonably be assumed that I accept that claim as correct -- or, at the very least, that I have no opinion on the claim. However, Rhomphaia manages to find an invalid invocation of the principle. Specifically, she invokes the principle and blocks response.

     "[It's] not honest to set up conditions when someone has already said they're done talking."
     Well, strictly speaking, I am stating my beliefs about why he has taken his ball and gone home. If he disagrees with those beliefs, I am not blocking him from saying so.
     "You can't just tag on a clause when they've walked away from a conversation!?!?"
     Of course I can. He departed in dishonesty and I can certainly tag on a clause to point it out to those who are paying attention.
     "...Talk about false dilemma- you gotta stop that, seriously."
     The list of logical fallacies is not simply some grab-bag that you can throw items from when you feel like it. I made my assessment for the reasons for his behavior. He can challenge them or not (on your post, of course; he is currently not welcome on my blog) at his discretion.
     "No need to respond- remember your rule- silence equals agreement,, hmm?"
     That would work a whole lot better if you weren't blocking responses. However, I responded where I could. It looks like I don't agree.

I love a good steak dinner.

     As I say in the title here, I love a good steak dinner. It's kind of expensive. But it's nice to have once in a while. Now, have you ever thought about what christians mean when they say Jesus loves you?

Does Norman actually have a job?

     Here, you will find a thread that includes audio where Norman's whinings are read by someone sympathetic. One thing I noticed was that Norman claimed "data entry" as his occupation. Now, that is a real occupation. In fact, it's mine. And Norman has seen me say so. Now, it's possible that, by sheer coincidence, he does the same type of work that I do. It's not a mentally challenging job. It only requires the ability to type accurately. But I think it more likely that Norman is a child, has no job, and simply latched on to an occupation that he heard elsewhere from someone (me) that he could rely on as identifying a real job description. I also find it strange that he is allowed to listen to internet broadcasts during working hours, though I suppose it's possible. Most companies prefer the company computers to be used for company business, but they will usually allow you to bring in a CD player. They just don't connect to the internet.
     There are some other interesting tidbits. He complains of name-calling, when he engages in continual name-calling himself. In fact, I find that everything that he complains about "atheists" doing to him is something that he does as standard practice. The complete hypocrisy is astonishing.
     There is one thing I can grant him. I did tell him that he was a fundamentalist christian even though he denied being so. However, I identified the definition I was using, someone who believes the bible to be a fundamental truth and authority, and it does describe him. I invited him to identify his definition and explain why he thought the term didn't apply to him. He basically said he didn't like the term because it sounds bad these days. Well, I'm not concerned with whether or not it "sounds bad." It is still an accurate description.