"Incoherent ramblings that are decades out of date"
Believe it or not, that was a Darwinist trolls' description of my ideas about coevolution: "incoherent ramblings that are decades out of date." :Incoherent ramblings" are never up-to-date, so how in the hell can they ever be out of date? That stupid comment shows the desperation of those who scoff at my ideas about coevolution. My difficulty in getting publicity and recognition for my ideas about coevolution shows the closed-mindedness of the Darwinist establishment. If the Darwinist establishment were open-minded, any idea that even had the potential to be a weakness of evolution theory would be bombarded with responses. Even if such an idea is eventually refuted, it has the potential to greatly enhance our understanding of evolution theory.
Darwinist troll and cyberbully Kevin Vicklund weighed in on the same comment thread [link] [link]. He made some really silly assertions.
Darwinist troll and cyberbully Kevin Vicklund weighed in on the same comment thread [link] [link]. He made some really silly assertions.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 7/02/2009 08:00:00 AM
8 Comments:
Larry,
Ever since I have discovered your blog, and other comments you made elsewhere, you always had trouble trying to get through to the masses.
I have a question for you. Now you struggle with trying to get your viewpoint out there to many people and it's not all Darwinists who hinder you, but your competing for people's attention with hundreds if not thousands of other blogs and sites as well, but I was wondering, is there others like you, that hold to the same ideas?
>>>>> your competing for people's attention with hundreds if not thousands of other blogs and sites as well <<<<<
Sitemeter (the icon at the bottom of the hompage's sidebar) shows that this blog has a monthly average of only about 25-100 visits per day, and some of those visits are repeat visits by the same Internet user. That is not really low traffic for a typical personal blog, but considering that I am one of the best-known "trolls" in the Darwinist blogosphere, I should be getting more traffic -- it seems that more people should be visiting this blog to get an alternative point of view. After all, I am at the top of the list of banned commenters on Sleazy PZ Myers' very popular Pharyngula blog (the "referrals" page of Sitemeter shows that a large fraction of my referrals comes from Sleazy PZ's webpage listing banned commenters). Something that especially surprises me is that often I don't see a big increase in visits when I post a link to this blog on some popular website.
>>>>> I was wondering, is there others like you, that hold to the same ideas? <<<<<<
So far as I know, my views about coevolution are unique -- I have never seen them expressed elsewhere. My main view about the holocaust is that a "systematic" holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews, and though the book "IBM and the Holocaust" does not hold this view, that book's introduction makes statements that could be interpreted as supporting this view:
When Hitler came to power, a central Nazi goal was to identify and destroy Germany's 600,000 Jews. To Nazis, Jews were not just those who practiced Judaism, but those of Jewish blood, regardless of their assimilation, intermarriage, religious activity, or even conversion to Christianity. Only after Jews were identified could they be targeted for asset confiscation, ghettoization, deportation, and ultimately extermination. To search generations of communal, church, and governmental records all across Germany--and later throughout Europe--was a cross-indexing task so monumental, it called for a computer. But in 1933, no computer existed . . . .
. . . I was haunted by a question whose answer has long eluded historians. The Germans always had the lists of Jewish names. Suddenly, a squadron of grim-faced SS would burst into a city square and post a notice demanding those listed assemble the next day at the train station for deportation to the East. But how did the Nazis get the lists? For decades, no one has known. Few have asked.
Larry,
Thanks for the reply. I understand where you are coming from. It doesn't mean I agree with it, but I understand.
Being notorious in a negative sense wouldn't automatically mean high volume traffic. You need quality links, not just being on a banned list on one high volume site or left from a comment if you want to hit the big time in traffic.
When was the last time you click on a link from someone who commented on a popular site? If you did, how many links do you click on from people who posted in those sites?
In a high volume site like PZ, how many posts do you read? The more posts in a blog, the more chance of yours getting lost in the crowd.
Since your views are unique, very few people know about them despite all the posting you have done there is still many who are not aware your views, which means many are not searching for the content in which you write.
Unless you become famous that would all change...lol
>>>>>> When was the last time you click on a link from someone who commented on a popular site? If you did, how many links do you click on from people who posted in those sites? <<<<<<
I click on links in others' comments all the time.
>>>>>> In a high volume site like PZ, how many posts do you read? The more posts in a blog, the more chance of yours getting lost in the crowd. <<<<<<
I don't expect to see a big increase in traffic when I leave a link in a comment on another website, but when another website gets thousands of visitors per day, I do expect to see a modest increase in traffic, and often I don't even see that.
BTW, the links that I leave on other blogs are always on-topic or relevant -- I don't leave links just for the purpose of "advertising" this blog, as has been falsely charged.
One of the advantages of having your own blog is that you can post links to long articles on your blog so that you don't have to clutter up other websites with long discussions. This is especially advantageous where the other website has a limit on comment length.
The volume on this blog probably dropped precipitously when you began extensive censorship. Are you surprized?
--The volume on this blog probably dropped precipitously when you began extensive censorship. Are you surprized? --
Comment censorship has nothing to do with traffic levels. Sleazy PZ Myers has a long list of banned commenters (in contrast, I never ban a commenter but consider all comments on a case-by-case basis), yet has tremendous traffic on his blog -- his Sitemeter shows that he is now averaging about 62,000 visits per day. Other bloggers who do a lot of censoring and banning also get a lot of traffic.
> Comment censorship has nothing to do with traffic levels. <
Wrong as usual. PZ Myers does not censor anyone because of a difference of opinion. He only censors them for outrageous behavior. You censor anything you can't answer. There is a big difference. As to you never banning anyone, you have threatened to ban anyone who even mentioned one commenter. Were you kidding?
>>>>>>Wrong as usual. PZ Myers does not censor anyone because of a difference of opinion. He only censors them for outrageous behavior. <<<<<<
Did I say anything about Sleazy PZ's reasons for censorship, you stupid fathead? No, I only said that censorship has nothing to do with traffic levels.
BTW, PZ does censor for reasons other than "outrageous behavior" -- here is a list of his reasons for censoring --
Concern trolling
A particularly annoying form of trolling in which someone falsely pretends to be offering advice to favor a position they do not endorse; a creationist who masquerades as someone concerned about the arguments for evolution as an excuse to make criticisms.
Godbotting
Making an argument based only on the premise that your holy book is sufficient authority; citing lots of bible verses as if they were persuasive.
Insipidity
A great crime. Being tedious, repetitive, and completely boring; putting the blogger to sleep by going on and on about the same thing all the time.
Morphing
Changing pseudonyms to avoid killfiles.
Slagging
Making only disparaging comments about a group; while some of this is understandable, if your only contribution is consistently "X is bad", even in threads that aren't about X, then you're simply slagging, not discussing.
Sockpuppetry
Like morphing, but with a specific intent: creating multiple identities supporting a position to create a false impression of popularity
Spamming
Using the comments to sell real estate, mortgage assessments, little blue pills, porn, or Russian mail-order brides. Spammers are not tolerated at all; they are expunged without comment.
Stupidity
Some people will just stun you with the outrageous foolishness of their comments; those who seem to say nothing but stupid things get the axe.
Trolling
Making comments intended only to disrupt a thread and incite flames and confusion
.
Wanking
Making self-congratulary comments intended only to give an impression of your importance or intelligence.
Furthermore, Sleazy PZ will ban a commenter for a single "offense." In contrast, I never ban a commenter but consider all comments on a case-by-case basis.
>>>>>> You censor anything you can't answer. <<<<<<
You lousy dunghill, we have been through this many times before. I said that I don't have to respond to every comment -- note that my blog header says,
My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.
>>>>>> As to you never banning anyone, you have threatened to ban anyone who even mentioned one commenter <<<<<<
WHAT? I can't understand what you are saying here (no surprise -- you are very poor at expressing yourself).
Post a Comment
<< Home