Preamble

July 10, 2012

I probably won’t be around for awhile. I’ve been doing some introspection tonight, trying to get to the root of my fascination with pathological liars. Well, along with doing some more rather heavy inner searching, I’ve decided to write a somewhat formal treatment on the subject. It’ll be a good writing exercise, if nothing else. Hopefully in a few weeks or so, I’ll have something comprehensive, as well as cogent (fingers crossed!).

Psychological investigation has revealed that lying is and has always been a ubiquitous facet of the human condition.  I hope to go into the history, the science, as well as the way the internet has paved broad new thoroughfares for liars to hock their wares upon. Can internet prevarication be considered a new art form? And how does religion play into all this? I mean, these folks seem to be walking a knife’s edge between ethical mandate and some inner drive to revel in their deceitful natures, don’t they? Like I said, it all fascinates me, so I’ll try to follow through on this just as quickly as I can, in between other projects.

If things wind up taking longer than expected, I’ll pop in for an update or two. Thanks for your patience, ye handful of visitors to this blog. Until I return, feel free to browse. :)

UPDATE: Wow, a lot of hits the last couple of days. People love a ruckus!

 

UPDATE: Might have to put this stuff on hold for awhile. I have some writing to do that might actually make me a little money, which is always foremost on my list of necessities, unfortunately. But I’ll try to keep checking in when I can, and commenting on cl’s more outrageous stuff as time and interest permit. Oh, and here’s a hint: Keep an eye on what cl ignores, and you’ll learn a lot about him. You know, read between the lines. LOL!

For those who care, anyway. :)


That’s it for today

July 9, 2012

Well THIS was certainly a fun way to spend an afternoon! Phew! Unfortunately, I have to go to work and leave all the last words to cl (which is pretty much always the case). Anyway, to sum up:

cl uses sockpuppets

cl posts under different IPs to mask his sockpuppet activities

Hmm; actually, I guess that’s about it, at least as far as cl’s concerns go. Concerns, btw, which he manufactures to avoid the vastly larger scope of his duplicitous nature. In the meantime, he just sort of skips over the meat of the issue, because, after all, he’ll never ‘fess up to that stuff until he gets caught red handed again, which’ll happen sooner or later, I suppose. That’s his modus, folks. Deflection of criticism through hyper-literal escape routes. Works every time, eh? LOLOL! At least, for some. For others…yawn. It’s all old news, isn’t it? 

But, like I said, it was a fun way to fritter away the afternoon, but the party’s over, time to call it a day. He writes and writes, and I write and write, and eventually I’ll state something poorly, or incompletely, and cl will jump on it and wring any saving grace he can muster out of it, and at the end of the day he’ll walk away feeling justified; nay, righteous; and the world will go on its merry way until tomorrow. 

Rest well, nutcase. I had a good time. :)


A commenter says…

July 9, 2012

Well, the posse is speaking out over at TWIM, now accusing ME of the stuff I’m accusing cl of via IPs. BIG difference, folks, although I don’t expect cl’s supporters to be very objective in defense of their team mate. Yep, I admittedly used an online proxy here, exactly because I didn’t want cl to catch onto who was parodying him, AND I admitted to it WITHOUT getting caught, after I was done with the parody bit, unlike cl, who ‘fessed up ONLY after the fact of being exposed. Oh, and I continue to use a proxy when I’m on cl’s site, because cl has demonstrated that he’s not above handing out his commenters’ IPs and email addys when the urge hits him, despite the fact that his site explicitly states that such information will NOT be posted to the public.

Rather than post Karl’s and cl’s lovefest in entirety, I thought I’d zone in on something Karl said that I thought was pertinent:

He is dishonest because if he is able to track comments via IP address therefore he should know many people comment using different IP addresses and this in-of-itself doesn’t mean much but he is presenting it as a smoking gun for his case.

No, Karl, this in itself DOESN’T mean much, but of course, my citing it is only icing on the cl-is-a-big-fat-liar 45 layer cake. My god, man, look at it in context, for Christ’s sake! LOLOL! Then again, look who I’m talking to, a guy who concludes that Richard Dawkins is an atheist on the basis of one incident that Dawkins himself brushed off almost immediately after:

And I am pretty sure that had something to do with his stance on religion.

Well, at least Karl said ‘pretty sure’, which puts him in somewhat better stead than cl. Anyway, Karl, I’d politely suggest that you read the transcripts before jumping on cl’s duplicitous bandwagon, and interpret the IP thing in that light. Or not.


cl’s folly

July 9, 2012

http://thewarfareismentalfanboy.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/for-joseph-with-a-j-43/

Just a reposting of the transcripts cl keeps citing in his own defense, having to do with some hi-jinks of some three years back . Now I ask you, is this evidence of an ‘experiment’ by cl to put those nasty atheists in their places, or has he merely fucked up on his sockpuppeting technique, clicking the wrong alias in his dropdown screen (remember, ‘sfatheist’ also commented on his blog, the day before, I believe, but that ‘sfatheist’ post mysteriously disappeared right after he got caught with his pants down. Unfortunately for cl, I’d already seen it). You might also note that cl has ONLY confessed to the sockpuppetry that he screwed up on, which represents only a fraction of his duplicitous activities. Anyhow, read the transcripts in the link above, and make up your own minds. :)


A question

July 9, 2012

Ah, it was only a matter of time before cl decided to get others to weigh in regarding our little tussle. That’ll be enlightening…not! LOL! Anyway, a question for any of you Christians who happen by. Will liars really be cast into the lake of fire for all eternity? And will cl be one of them, or does he have an ‘out’ card for some reason? Also, is cl a Christian, or a POE? From rationalwiki:

Poe’s Law states:[1]

Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won’t mistake for the real thing.

Poe’s Law is an axiom suggesting that it’s difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between parodies of religious or other fundamentalismand its genuine proponents, since they both seem equally insane. 

I’ll admit, I’m torn. On the one hand, cl’s over-the-top hypocrisy and other nonsense brands him as a poe in my mind. But, REALLY, for this long, and to this depth? It’s really hard for me to imagine. Also,  I’ve seen other apparent Christians of the same stripe, playing the same games, so my vote is ‘no’. He’s the real deal, which is frightening in itself. No, not frightening, really. Disturbing is a better word. 

Anyway, if I ever find out he IS a poe, I guess that’ll be egg all over MY face, eh? In my heart of hearts, I really wouldn’t mind, since the alternative is infinitudes more ickier.


Here’s a good one

July 9, 2012

Ah, the ol’ double standard rears its ugly head yet again:

cl says:

You’re psycho-analyzing again (and in fact this is decent evidence suggesting you are Jim Crawford and not somebody impersonating Jim Crawford, because for Jim Crawford it was often about attributing motive and acting as if that assumed motive was established fact).

Contrasted with:

cl says:

I did not know that Richard Dawkins was fondled by a “Latin master” when he was 9, but if this “Latin master” was a religious figure, that explains just about everything about Dawkins’ stance on religion. Does anybody know anything else about this?

Which, of course, can be contrasted with this:

cl says:

 I didn’t smear Dawkins. I merely reported true, public information about the man, and SUGGESTED his negative experience with a religious figure MIGHT explain SOME orPOSSIBLY all of his irrational, militantly anti-religious stance.

cl is what you might call an ‘argumental relativist’; meaning that he says pretty much whatever supports his premise at the time, no matter what diametrically opposed crapola he might say to support his premise somewhere else, even within the body of the same post, at times. In short, he’s a practitioner of throwing shit against the wall until something sticks, or at least leaves a stain. He’s the master of inane justification and rationalization of his own actions, the arbiter of his own deceits, the supreme polywog in his pond of self-delusion, never quite growing into his own froghood. I have to admit, it’s fun to watch him splash around. :)


cl’s ‘challenge’

July 9, 2012

So, cl has challenged me to a chatbox face-off; a challenge I have declined. Why? Well, other than the fact that I’ve already answered his challenges on this blog in excruciating detail, using in many cases HIS OWN WORDS against him, there’s this from RationalWiki:

The Gish Gallop is a skeptics’ jargon term, named after creationist Duane Gish, for the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time.

The Gish Gallop is also cl’s preferred mode of operation in debating his opponents in the threads, so you can imagine what it must be like debating him live. Oh, he can insinuate that I’m afraid, or inferior, or whatever, but really, what would be the point? I’ve engaged people live online hundreds of times over the years, with one of two results. We either wind up having an amiable conversation, or it all ends in lots of heat and negligible light. I gave most of that shit up some time ago out of sheer frustration, and am not of a mind to revisit it with the likes of cl. He likes warfare, but I’ve grown out of it for the most part, preferring to lob shells of truth and wisdom into the enemy’s camp and watch the melee ensue.

cl, if you ever have any viable refutation of my charges that won’t make people squirt milk out their noses in disbelief, bring it on. Otherwise, shut the fuck up and move on. Or, better yet, come clean. That would take guts, and I’d actually gain some respect for you. Otherwise, I’ll go on considering you the joke that you are in the eyes of hundreds. Have a nice day! :)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.