Long blog article attacks me and this blog
Crackpot Darwinist Steven Schafersman, a blogger on the Houston Chronicle's new Evo.Sphere blog and president of the Texas Citizens for Science, has posted a long blog article devoted entirely to attacking me and this blog. The article has the impressive title, "How Evolution Education in Texas Can Prosper: Ignore the Anti-Evolutionists in Science Blogs." Devoting a whole big article to attacking me and my ideas shows that he considers my ideas to be a big threat.
Schafersman's article was posted recently -- on 9/5/2008 9:48 AM CDT -- and so far Sitemeter shows that I am still not getting very many referrals from the links in his article. When I am attacked in one of Sleazy PZ Myers' articles on the Pharyngula blog, I see a huge surge in the numbers of daily visits -- from the normal level of under a hundred visits to as many as around 400. Sitemeter now shows me getting a lot more referrals from Sleazy PZ's killfile
dungeon -- where I am at the top of the list of banned commenters -- than I am getting from Schafersman's article.
As Gov. Schwarzenegger said: "I'm always kicking their butts -- that's why they don't like me."
Schafersman's article was posted recently -- on 9/5/2008 9:48 AM CDT -- and so far Sitemeter shows that I am still not getting very many referrals from the links in his article. When I am attacked in one of Sleazy PZ Myers' articles on the Pharyngula blog, I see a huge surge in the numbers of daily visits -- from the normal level of under a hundred visits to as many as around 400. Sitemeter now shows me getting a lot more referrals from Sleazy PZ's killfile
dungeon -- where I am at the top of the list of banned commenters -- than I am getting from Schafersman's article.
As Gov. Schwarzenegger said: "I'm always kicking their butts -- that's why they don't like me."
posted by Larry Fafarman | 9/08/2008 01:36:00 AM
21 Comments:
His article is excellent and quite accurate. Thank you for directing us to it.
You just got spanked, Larry. Now go to the corner and think about what you've done wrong.
More evidence that Larry is like a little boy who needs attention and knows that he can get it by acting up. His problem isn't that the blogger showed Larry to be the jackass that we all know him to be. Larry's biggest complaint is a lack of referrals!
Wow, Larry
Your getting popular. I found the blog interesting, firstly, the person didn't want to confront you in here. Secondly, he ranted on how perfect evolutionary scientists are...
Austin L. Hughes, an evolutionary biologist at the University of South Carolina wrote...
“Contrary to a widespread impression, natural selection does not leave any unambiguous “signature” on the genome, certainly not one that is still detectable after tens or hundreds of millions of years. To biologists schooled in Neo-Darwinian thought processes, it is virtually axiomatic that any adaptive change must have been fixed as a result of natural selection. But it is important to remember that reality can be more complicated than simplistic textbook scenarios.”
Well maybe not all of them, just the ones the blogger agrees with...lol
His criticisms were basically attacks on your writing style not the substance. Even though I don't always agree with you Larry, you sure make things interesting in the blogs...
@ Michael
How would the author of the blog post go about "confronting" our dear LF here? Comment on the relevant posts? (ineffective because many of these posts are months old)
Second, the blog doesn't criticize his writing style, just as the commenters here don't criticize his writing style, we criticize the "substance" of his posts because he has no knowledge of the things of which he speaks. (Also his assertions of "credibility" and "vast knowledge of everything" or maybe it was "superior knowledge" are worthy of criticism)
Erin eructs,
>>>>>> he has no knowledge of the things of which he speaks. <<<<<<
You lousy dunghill, I really resent that because it is obvious that I spend an awfully great amount of time doing research for this blog.
> I really resent that because it is obvious that I spend an awfully great amount of time doing research for this blog. <
Doing a word search and then misinterpreting what you find can hardly be called "research".
>>>>>> Doing a word search and then misinterpreting what you find can hardly be called "research". <<<<<<
It's not just word searching, bozo -- I spend many hours randomly surfing the Internet looking for things of interest. I also spend many hours visiting particular websites in a blind search for material. And because of my great familiarity with such subjects as monkey trials, I can recall relevant information that others are not aware of.
As for word searches, just knowing what keywords to use is very important, doofus. For example, I found that the magic words "satire" and "parody" opened a surprisingly fruitful area of research in copyright law, as is evidenced in my articles about the Yoko v. Expelled lawsuit.
As for interpretation, the readers can interpret the facts their way and I will interpret the facts my way. But without the facts, there would be nothing to interpret.
If you think it is so easy to write a blog like this, doofus, let's see you do it.
I thought that the article was far too soft on Larry. Maybe I misread, or maybe I just know Larry's writings too well.
Larry wrote, "I spend many hours randomly surfing the Internet looking for things of interest. I also spend many hours visiting particular websites in a blind search for material."
And yet another reason to keep students from using websites for research papers. Or any kind of paper for any level of school, for that matter.
> I also spend many hours visiting particular websites in a blind search for material. <
A blind search? Perhaps that is why your research has been so ineffective.
anonymous wrote, "A blind search? Perhaps that is why your research has been so ineffective."
Let's give Larry some credit -- the blind search aspect is certainly part of the weakness of his blog, but his non-existent critical-thinking skills and practically non-existent reading comprehension skills play a big part in his ineffective research, (if it can even be considered research in any meaningful way).
>>>>>> A blind search? Perhaps that is why your research has been so ineffective. <<<<<<
I wouldn't say it has been "ineffective" --- I have stumbled upon some good stuff in this way.
I frequently browse websites in my external link list. I also regularly browse some websites that are not in my external link list. I also browse the general news. And -- of course -- I sometimes do google searches with keywords. I have no fixed ways of finding material. One of my best sources of material is, of course, this blog.
I am proud of this blog. I think that it is better researched than a lot of blogs. Because of my extensive research, I can often support positions that many people consider to be unsupportable. That is one of the reasons why the trolls hate me, and they often sneer at the hard-to-find facts I present to back up my positions and all they can do is just falsely claim that I am misinterpreting the facts.
Look at Steven Schafersman on the Houston Chronicle's Evo.Sphere blog who just shoots off his unsupported opinion that evolution education is being "marginalized and avoided" in the USA's public schools. There may be some anecdotal evidence that supports that view, but as a general rule that view is a misconception, as shown by the reports that I presented on this blog.
I try to avoid just posting "me-too" articles that are just copies or near copies of articles on other websites.
It is not easy running a blog that has frequent posts.
Nada driveled,
>>>> his non-existent critical-thinking skills and practically non-existent reading comprehension skills <<<<<
You are just a big bag of hot air, bozo -- you don't present any logical arguments to counter my reasoning.
"You are just a big bag of hot air, bozo -- you don't present any logical arguments to counter my reasoning."
Only because you don't have any reasoning, as stated above.
Erin eructs,
>>>>>> Only because you don't have any reasoning, as stated above. <<<<<
How could my reasoning be bad, dunghill, if I don't have any?
As Tom Willis said, the big problem is deciding what to do with you lousy Darwinists until your end comes.
Hi Erin,
I hope your well...You state; How would the author of the blog post go about "confronting" our dear LF here? Comment on the relevant posts?
Most people feel comfortable in an friendly environment. While Larry has done some censorship, I believe it's what? Three posts that were removed...The rest he leaves on here and sometimes argues with people a little too long with various posts.
Schafersman's blog wasn't for the purpose of confronting Larry. Although he does try and talk to Larry in the blog. The title of the blog reveals it's real purpose.
What schafersman is trying to do, is mimic the well known atheists whom he admires. It would have been possible to confront Larry here, but you would not of like the outcome.
I have engaged with Larry with some debate, and even told him once I thought his head was in the sand...lol...I wasn't trying to be mean, it was an expression which I thought he didn't see the obvious on one of my points.
But the thing is, I didn't have to write a whole thesis about him in another blog. That is not to say, I don't write about people, but I do engage people in debate or in agreement at various times directly in blogs.
Have a good day!
Most people feel comfortable in an friendly environment. While Larry has done some censorship, I believe it's what? Three posts that were removed...The rest he leaves on here and sometimes argues with people a little too long with various posts.
. . .
It would have been possible to confront Larry here, but you would not of like the outcome.
Michael, nobody who comments on this blog thinks they are going to "win" in the comments. (Unless they're really new.) Additionally, unless you consider rampant name-calling to be a "friendly" environment, this blog does in no way comprise a "friendly" environment. Finally, Larry is just too ignorant of facts and distrustful of logic and confused as to the meanings of words to be able to have intelligent discourse.
Schafersman's blog wasn't for the purpose of confronting Larry. Although he does try and talk to Larry in the blog. The title of the blog reveals it's real purpose.
Considering that SS addressed several posts, practically, it would not have been possible to address LF here.
But the thing is, I didn't have to write a whole thesis about him in another blog.
I don't necessarily support SS's blog post about Larry, (I think it has fed Larry's already overinflated ego, see "I'm always kicking their butts. . .") but I do think it was justified, in light of Larry's rampant comments on that blog.
Michael said,
>>>>>> While Larry has done some censorship, I believe it's what? Three posts that were removed<<<<<<
So far I have censored only for the following reasons:
(1) Gossip about my private affairs
(2) Blatant lies about objective facts (e.g., saying that Judge Jones told a newspaper that he was going to follow the law when he actually told the newspaper that the school board election results would not affect his decision).
Occasionally comments disappear because of software glitches.
>>>>>> Schafersman's blog wasn't for the purpose of confronting Larry. <<<<<<
What? The whole article was devoted to confronting me.
Erin said,
>>>>>> unless you consider rampant name-calling to be a "friendly" environment, this blog does in no way comprise a "friendly" environment. <<<<<<
I usually don't call people names unless I am provoked.
>>>>>> Larry is just too ignorant of facts and distrustful of logic and confused as to the meanings of words to be able to have intelligent discourse. <<<<<<<
Statements like that provoke me, dunghill.
>>>>>> in light of Larry's rampant comments on that blog. <<<<<<
"Rampant comments"? How do you define "rampant comments"? The truth?
"I usually don't call people names unless I am provoked."
Where by "provoked" Larry means "someone disagreed with me." This happens all the time. Also, "usually"? So, you sometimes call people names without provocation? Sounds friendly to me.
"Statements like that provoke me, dunghill."
Umm, kay, refute it then. Let's see some of your crazy logic. (No really, I wanna see it.)
"'Rampant comments'? How do you define 'rampant comments'? The truth?"
Uh, well, let's see, From M-W.com:
Rampant: profusely widespread
Comment: a note explaining, illustrating, or criticizing the meaning of a writing
so, combining those we get "profusely widespread notes explaining, illustrating, or criticizing the meaning of a writing"
That's basically what I meant. Oh, and case in point on my previous comment. ("Larry is just too ignorant of facts and distrustful of logic and confused as to the meanings of words to be able to have intelligent discourse." for reference)
As the saying goes, don't feed the trolls.
Sitemeter shows me getting a lot of referrals now from Schafersman's article, and I think that is mainly because Fatheaded Ed Brayton posted an article about Schafersman's article.
Post a Comment
<< Home