Hello, Ilion.In the post to which he (or she) links, he says, among other nuggets:
Yes, I know. You don't care what I have to say, so I'll keep this brief.
Remember how you and Zach on DI used to be rather 'buddy buddy'? You know - teaming up to attack and insult those nasty, "lying" theists (like myself, Ben and others) who you regarded negatively for one reason or another (aka 'for disagreeing with you on any topic')?
He was a sockpuppet of a materialist atheist. Specifically, BDK.
All I want to say right now is this: An atheist used a fake Christian identity, primarily to attack Christians and anti-materialists. Insofar as he encouraged you to attack as well, and defended your behavior, there's a very reasonable conclusion to draw: he regarded you as a kind of useful idiot. The Christian who he didn't need to fight or oppose, and in fact could stand to gain by encouraging.
Think about this, Ilion. Perhaps you will learn a lesson.
Feel free to make a post about yours truly, reacting with fury to this realization. Chances are, I will not notice it. On the off chance you realize you have, to some degree, been played by an atheist, you can contact me on my blog to discuss matters. I will not expect your arrival.
I know I have some Dangerous Idea regulars around here. There's a variety of regular names there (aside from, of course, Victor Reppert himself.) In particular, we have Blue Devil Knight and Zach. BDK is an atheist and a materialist. Typically well-mannered, etc. Zach is a very angry non-materialist Christian who doesn't like 'Christians relying on obviously poor arguments instead of focusing on the good ones'. BDK is typically civil. Zach mocks, insults and generally attacks people he disagrees with - with a particular axe to grind against yours truly, though ingx24 and others have been on the receiving end. In fact, others have long noticed that Zach has a habit of going after theists negatively to quite the extreme, and not having much attention paid to atheists. Quite the gulf between them.My comments, non-exhaustively and in no particular order:
And it turns out they're the same person.
Before I go on - kudos to ingx24, who had this to say at one point: I feel like Zach might be a materialist in disguise trying to make his criticisms of dualist arguments seem plausible by pretending he's a dualist. It seems like Zach spends more time criticizing anti-materialist arguments than he does criticizing materialism.
To which I can only say... sharp eye, ingx24. Ilion? If you're reading this, not nearly as sharp of an eye.
...
[Quoting himself] But I'm not going to pretend this was some meager one-time slipup. Ilion's gotta be tearing his hair out right about now if he sees this.
...
But there are lessons here. First? Just because someone is well-spoken and civil doesn't mean they're gracious. BDK apologized profusely, but then again, who doesn't apologize profusely when they think they're irrevocably caught? ...
1) I? A "useful idiot" of the intellectually dishonest atheist/materialist Zach/BDK? Well! That thesis certainly explains many things quite nicely, don't you think, such as this post from 13 months ago?
Zach: "Ilion I am a Christian."Does the reader not realize how rare it is of me to say to someone something so serious as, "I doubt that you are a Christian"?
I actively doubt it.
Zach: "I just find the utter lack of charity in reading atheists, from people on this site, disgusting."
No, you are "disgusted" by clear, logically consistent, unemotional, non-sentimental, critical thinking.
Zach: "Ilion is the Babinsky of Christians."
You do know, do you not, that hypocrit[e]s are damned-of-God?
2) Why, pray tell, would I be tearing out my hair over Blue Devil Knight's accidental self-de-soxing?
2a) Oh, that's right! because I am "buddy buddy" with 'Zack' and have now been exposed as having been made a useful idiot by BDK.
2b) Plus, the intellectually dishonest ingénue, 'ingx24', who won't call himself an atheist, even though he is (I mean, to the extent that *anyone* is a real atheist in this degenerate age), and who can't seem to admit even to himself that he really is a materialist, has been shown to have a sharper eye than I ... at any rate, in 13-month 20/20 hindsight.
3) As best I recall, there is only one person with whom I was ever "buddy buddy" on Mr Reppert's blog, and that person emphatically was not 'Zach'. Moreover, that person has chosen for the past year and a half and more to not only misrepresent me, but to actively lie about me.
4) Even now, even after having caught out Blue Devil Knight in such gross intellectual dishonesty (which term the lying hypocrite seems reluctant to use), the fool is still calling BDK "civil"? Whereas I *never* made that mistake ... and that is one of the reasons some of the regulars at Mr Reppert's blog hate me so.
Hell! even the ever-polite Victor Reppert was, at one point (at about the time I had lost most interest in his blog), commiserating with ... get this ... Blue Devil Knight about mean ol' me. I saw the posted conversation months later, quite by accident searching for something or other, and I have no idea how to find it again. Still, in observing how Mr Reppert's community-of-commenters has evolved over the past couple of years, it seems to me that he got just what he wanted. Or, at least, deserves (*).
Perhaps the lying hyopcrite might find it prudent to expend a bit more concern about his (or her) own lessons learned than with mine. Just a wild blue-sky thought on my part.
(*) Oh, my! Does that imply that I deserve a certain radical leftist bomb-thrower ;) who has been recently dabbling his toes in "the dark side"?
11 comments:
On the silver-lining side, at least we now know what Blue Devil Knight thinks of Babibski!
Buddy buddy.
Buddy buddy.
Buddy buddy.
Buddy buddy.
Buddy buddy.
So long as he was attacking people you dislike (even fellow Christians) and seemingly agreeing with you, you were his little ally.
And you were played.
Crude,
I have no wish to get in the middle of this spat between you and Ilion (any more than I wish to interfere in your war with Skep over on DI), but am I the only one here who finds it a bit creepy that you keep files on everything that people have posted?
LOL -- didn't you imply a few months ago ... at about the time you began to acknowledge that I'm not totally bad (at least intellectually) ... that you keep files of all your "righteous smack-downs" of (at least) me?
No, no files. I had to google the references (at which I am very bad).
Bob,
I have no wish to get in the middle of this spat between you and Ilion (any more than I wish to interfere in your war with Skep over on DI), but am I the only one here who finds it a bit creepy that you keep files on everything that people have posted?
First, I don't have a war with Skep on DI. I think he's an idiot and deserves to be called out on that front, because one lingering Cult of Gnu problem is the incredible number of stupid people who join up with the Cult thinking 'By joining this, I automatically am more intelligent and also an authority on science!' That's a notion some need to be disabused of.
Oh, and for the record? Notice I never call Ilion stupid. I think he got played, but he more often than not at least is informed enough about the intellectual topics he's engaging in. He's just got a poisonous personality.
Second, who keeps files? I post links to my conversations on my blogs - but those are conversations hosted by other sites. I did keep and download some of BDK/Zach's conversation, but that was a unique situation - he is actively trying to erase Zach's entire history from the web, including each and every comment he's made at DI.
The links I posted aren't 'files I kept'. Those are kept by Google in particular, in this case. I just posted links to them, and it was as simple as searching for the right combination and selecting the cache. Just as I don't 'keep a file' on Linton - I just have a good memory, and in the case of his plagiarism, it's kept at Ed's blog. Easy to find too - funny how if you google for 'Papalinton' and 'Plagiarist', that convo comes up immediately.
By the way, this is mostly in light-hearted jest, but I want to say it anyway... why is it that when an individual or private organization keeps files on someone, it's creepy - but when the government keeps vastly more exhaustive files on people, well hey, that's just the government taking care of its citizens? ;)
"why is it that when an individual or private organization keeps files on someone, it's creepy - but when the government keeps vastly more exhaustive files on people, well hey, that's just the government taking care of its citizens?"
They're both creepy.
As a veteran of 34 years service with the National Security Agency, I have to say that the recent revelations sometimes make me ashamed of my association with that organization. And for the record, I never spied on, maintained records of, kept tabs on, monitored or surveiled any US citizen, either within this country or abroad (or any foreign national residing within the United States) - never - not once. I had my hands full with the Bad Guys.
I *did* say "implied" ... you quoted yourself, and said something to the effect that you didn't have a link to the quote ... and a certain liar then supplied/posted the link.
As I recall, I demonstrated that it wasn't nearly the "righteous smack-down" your memory had turned it into.
Goodness! It's 8:00 ... I'm going to have to close up the house soon (and head to North Canton for the week).
As a veteran of 34 years service with the National Security Agency, I have to say that the recent revelations sometimes make me ashamed of my association with that organization.
Is having a registry showing a complete list of every person who legally possesses a handgun 'creepy'? A government-owned list of your medical history? I could go on.
Either way, no, I don't keep a list. I just know how to search and work the Google cache when I need to, and I have a good memory. (Rather like how it only took BDK one slip-up for me to connect him mentally with Zach. That wasn't ace research, that was just pattern matching from memory.)
Ah! So 'Blue Devil Knight' made some posts on my blog as 'Zach' (*), most of which he has now deleted -- and, of course, I had no idea that they were the same person -- and because I didn't respond to him with hostility, it simply *must* be the case that I was "buddy buddy" with him and was successfully played by the intellectually dishonest ploy of claiming to be the exact opposite of what one is.
Let's look at the first thread to which the liar links; this is what 'Zach' posted (and has recently deleted) ... my responses are there for the reader to see if he cares to look:
#1:) "I don't know if it is worth it to even bother with such people, Ilion. You are stroking his ego by doing this, is my guess."
#2:) "Yes, I didn't mean to imply that you were licking boots, but simply even by refuting him, he would take it as something to be proud of, even if he is (demonstrably) in the wrong."
So, keeping someone at arms-length (as I keep most people ... and almost always regret when I do not) is proof that I was "buddy buddy" with 'Zach', and was being played by 'Blue Devil Knight'.
Let's look at the second thread to which the liar links; this is (part of) what 'Zach' said: "I agree about the emasculation of the American male and the strange lingering at Jr High School girl mentality (e.g., the internet wannabe Crude who posts at Victor's blog is a great example of this overpersonalizing chatterbox gossip). ..."
And, this is how I responded: "Hi, Zach. Welcome to my little blog."
So, *obviously*, my disinclination to be drawn into a catty gossip-fest concerning a certain unbalanced person who by then had been publicly lying about me for months is proof that I was "buddy buddy" with 'Zach', and was being played by 'Blue Devil Knight'.
(*) he also made two posts as 'Blue Devil Knight' here, which he has not (yet) deleted. His comments were civil, even friendly, and I responded in kind. Heavens! I *must* be a crypto-atheist!
===========
I will freely admit it: I have been played! BUT, the truth is, the *only* person who has ever "played" me in the Internet is a certain fool who now devotes an inordinate amount of his time to lying about me.
===========
What's going on here is "psychological projection" -- a certain liar is (for now! and watch the tears when that changes) "buddy buddy" with the little crap-weasel twit, 'ing(énue)24' -- soley on the basis of his undisguised and pointless hostility toward me -- and it simply *must* be the case that I behave and (ahem) reason in the same manner.
So, keeping someone at arms-length (as I keep most people ... and almost always regret when I do not) is proof that I was "buddy buddy" with 'Zach', and was being played by 'Blue Devil Knight'.
He patted you on the head when you went on your usual attacks against your fellow theists, and when he did that, you warmed up to him. Which is precisely why down the line you two had pretty much an internet armistice thing going on, where you wouldn't criticize him as reflexively as you do everyone else - after all, he attacks the people you dislike. Good enough, right?
And of course you didn't know BDK was Zach. Rather the point. But hey, best not to second-guess your attitude and approach, right? It cannot possibly be that your behavior with those you disagree with is in some way mistaken, or that your willingness to tolerate people purely for attacking the same targets that have you so riled is likewise mistaken.
This blog is going to be interesting to see in say... five years' time. It's going to be one long list of 'People ilion previously regarded as intelligent and who make good arguments, but who actually turned out to be LIARS because they disagreed with Ilion'.
Post a Comment