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! 
“…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. “
Gladly. Since you’re the one making the positive claim, the onus is on you to finally answer the following question: how does a concession to using different IP addresses falsify a claim that one has never commented via proxy?
[...] of web technology, without which a meaningful answer can’t be supplied. As addressed here and here, twimfanboy has accused me of “blatant dishonesty” because, in a thread three years [...]
Notice that cl has zoned in on one point, using his patent hyper-literal approach to avoid conceding to his deceitful practices. Also notice that he’s only admitting to the one occasion where he actually bungled his sock puppetry antics, and was forced to come up with a REALLY LAME justification for his actions i.e. “I was performing an ‘experiment’”. LOLOL! And what about all his other sock puppets, including Godless Randall, where he actually counterfeited an actual blog to make it look like he was an old timer? Why, since he didn’t fuck up on the drop down screen, he never did it!
Then of course there are all the other examples of his blatant dishonesty, one of the latest being his reply to a commenter regarding the Richard Dawkins molestation thing. I’m telling you, folks, it’s just incredible to watch this guy pull this stuff out of his ass, again and again and again. Must see tv!
Notice that cl has zoned in on one point, using his patent hyper-literal approach to avoid conceding to his deceitful practices.
There you go, folks. Pure avoidance, just as I predicted. You see, twimfanboy knows that an honest answer to my question will expose the vacuity of his claim. That’s why he’ll avoid it like the plague, and I’ll welcome it with open arms.
Also, notice how cl skips over other pertinent examples of his sockpuppetry APART from the incidence where he actually got caught with his pants down. Remember, we only have the word of a known prevaricator that he’s never used IP proxies. Also remember that there are IP proxies, and there are also methods to change your IP# that don’t employ actual proxy servers. My guess is that cl is using his hyper-literalistic approach as an subterfuge to keep from admitting that he fakes it on a regular basis, thus his assertion that he frequently uses different IPs.
It’s all about the weight of evidence, folks, and no amount of nitpicking can get around that. I’ll repost the transcripts of the incident cl keeps citing, and let the discerning reader be the judge.
Cl writes, “Nice circular logic. That I am a “known prevaricator” is precisely the premise in question.”
cl attacks one of the many instances in which you have alleged his prevarication convincingly, and then concludes that he has put in question whether he is a known prevaricator. He has at most put in question a single piece of evidence to that effect. This is a usual cl-ish tactics. He is so outrageous that he elicits a slight over-reaching response; then he focuses an that one minor piece of evidence as though its failings discharge the whole laundry list of lies and other deceit. (Consider how he recently did this to St. Peter re “quote mining” or to me when cl made the truth-loving comment that heads this blog and I mistakenly put quotes around a paraphrase.)
Did cl tell a blatant lie in this instance regarding the proxies? Probably: he’s been shown a habitual liar by numerous examples. Why would he suddenly tell the truth about anything potentially damaging? But as cl presents the story, it’s a form of deceit that should probably be distinguished from a lie, which is not to say it’s any more an honest form of conduct. cl knew what the question about the different IP addresses intended. To rely on technical distinctions to evade the truth in nontechnical forums is a particularly disgusting form of deceit. What cl is now doing is bragging about having pulled off the deceit. Again, cl: I’m a prick, not an idiot; and, please, don’t forget how much technology trivia I’ve absorbed before you call me stupid!
Cl writes, “Nice circular logic. That I am a “known prevaricator” is precisely the premise in question.”
But then, with cl there’s always the question: does he really know what “circular logic” is? Didn’t Matt, a student of logic, show that cl just doesn’t understand logical implication (as distinguished from physical necessity). Can one grasp “circular argument” without a glimmer about “logical implication.”
Dead on, Stephen. Isn’t it all just fascinating? LOL! Gotta run, thanks for stopping by.
Diamond,
I’m getting sick of typing, so I called your ass to discuss this in person. You didn’t pick up. So… here it goes:
To rely on technical distinctions to evade the truth in nontechnical forums is a particularly disgusting form of deceit.
What “truth” am I evading?
Xian nutter Karl Grant has stepped up to the plate at twim. I don’t know whether Grant is willfully obtuse, stupid, or both. Probably both; birds of a feather. I’ve never managed to get Grant to understand a single sentence I’ve wrote. I’ve never seen him understand a single sentence an opponent has written.
Brilliant! Keep deferring! Keep avoiding! Do anything you can to avoid that house of cards from crashing down around you! Keep pretending the question is anything other than what it actually is!
Remember, we only have the word of a known prevaricator that he’s never used IP proxies.
Nice circular logic. That I am a “known prevaricator” is precisely the premise in question. It’s funny (sad, actually), you act like I won’t “legitimately” engage you, but then when I do, you hide behind obfuscation like this. You don’t even have the balls or integrity to answer a legitimate question.
My guess is that cl is using his hyper-literalistic approach as an subterfuge to keep from admitting that he fakes it on a regular basis, thus his assertion that he frequently uses different IPs.
Your “guess,” eh? LOLOL!!! So much for solid evidence, I guess! To hell with solid evidence! I have a guess, dammit!
It’s all about the weight of evidence, folks…
No it isn’t, it’s about “guessing.” You just said as much. Your “evidence” is pathetic and you know it. Worse, other people are starting to catch on.
Go ahead, rifle another disorganized comment right back, just make sure it successfully dodges the question I asked and you’re safe from all that cognitive dissonance. I’m not going to let you have the last word on this one. You’re either going to ban me, leave the question unaddressed or finally man up and issue the apology that I deserve.
Keep typing all night if you like, cl. Since I know how you like sockpuppetry, and since I know you post your sockpuppets under alternate IPs, and since I also know that the ones you confess to using aren’t the only ones, voila! Circular logic? Nah, your prevarication goes FAR beyond your use of alternate IPs. In fact, it encompasses your whole internet personality. You can pound this one nail until your forehead’s bloody; it doesn’t change who you are, or what you do. Now that I think of it, I’m not even sure what question I’m supposedly avoiding. Let’s see:
“…how does a concession to using different IP addresses falsify a claim that one has never commented via proxy?”
It doesn’t; not from a strictly logical stance, that is. Never said it did. Is that the concession you’re looking for? LOL! Sorry, bud, I thought we were talking about the real world, and a conclusion based on what you said according to how you are known to act. That doesn’t make you any less of a name changer, or an IP changer, or a heavy duty bullshitter. Wow, anything counts as a victory for you, huh?
Anyway, keep typing and lying, lying and typing. Maybe you can find a sentence or two here not stated clearly enough, and you can tangle it up to mean what you like, like you pretty much always do. Good luck with that. In the meantime, I’ll continue to present cl in all his duplicitous glory.
Man, your chumpitude really knows no bounds, does it? How awkward for you.
fanboy writes: “It’s all about the weight of evidence, folks…”
cl writes: “No it isn’t, it’s about ‘guessing.’”
Again, cl focuses on a particular word fanboy used. cl’s approach is to equate all plausibility arguments with arguments based on sheer guesswork. So, Fanboy made a small tactical error in referring to his own plausibility estimate colloquially, as a “guess.” To cl, this is an admission that weight of evidence is guesswork.
Let me use a legal analogy. We sit here as jury, not as judge. We aren’t required to avoid guessing, as long as our guesses have a rational basis. While cl doesn’t understand formal logical implication, he most surely doesn’t understand inference to the best explanation.
cl deploys his stupidity as an offensive weapon.
It doesn’t; not from a strictly logical stance, that is.
Then, whence the conclusion that I’m guilty of “blatant dishonesty?”