A while back, March 2015, he claimed that Scientific American is not a trustworthy source of science news and, instead, provided a link to a site that masquerades as science news but it clearing run by creationits (spelling intentional.) He denied that it is a creationist site. He denied that he is a creationist. Finally he tells us that he just picked it at random.
Well, the old boy has done it again. The article is what should be done about the fountain that was installed long ago by the segregationist group, the Daughters of the Confederacy. I made my usual claim that the group has a segregationist agenda with no opinion as to what to do about the fountain. dietz1963 and few others try to change the subject by bringing up the red herring that blacks served in the Confederate army.
I, of course, provided links to a few scholarly articles that calls that claim into question.
dietz1963, in all of his ignorance, provides “proof” that they did serve in the Confederate army by providing a link to southernheritage411.com. In his ecstasy, he neglected to drill around on the site and look at who is behind it. I did:
dietz1963, below, in a now deleted comment, provided a URL to a site (southernheritage411.com) that supports dietz1963 position that blacks supported the Confederacy by serving in the rebel army.
dietz1963, regarding the URL you provided, is this just another case of you picking something at random thinking it would counter whatever I posted and you did so without looking into the the site yourself?
Depending on how you answer, you are either ignorant of the material you pointed to or you are supporting segregation and white supremacy. Your call.
That site is run by one guy who, at best, can be described as a southern apologist and, at worse, a white supremacist. He uses lines like this:
“The federal government used “slavery” as an excuse to invade the peaceful Southern states…”
He said the Federal government has “…taught their Yankee version of history in our public schools for the last 140+ years and have purposely taught hatred…”
He claims there were “millions of blacks who supported the South in it’s struggle for independence.”
This guy was one of the directors of the Southern Legal Resource Center whose main attorney had his marriage at the neo-N@zi Aryan Nations compound in Idaho.
The SCV made him an honorary member and then went after him after he was selling their wares but pocketing the money for himself.
This guy’s association and support of segregationist and white supremacy groups goes on and on.
And this is the guy YOU selected to back up your position!
dietz1963, you are a gift that just keeps on giving.
This goes on and all the sudden all my comments responding to dietz1963 and the URL as well as his are deleted. Of course, I save mine and will continue to repost them, forever.
Update, July 23, 2015
dietz1963 thought (strong word when referring to dietz1963) that he found a way out of this latest dilemma of his when he posted that the author of the nonsense on this web site is black. dietz1963 claims that there is no way that the site could be racist, segregationist, or white supremacist because the author is black and that he had been the chapter president of the NAACP.
Poor old dietz1963. He really needs to dig deeper. The author, H.K. Edgerton, yes, is black and was the chapter president of the NAACP but, as it turns out, the guy is a crank. He was voted out of his NAACP position for bringing the chapter into near financial ruin. The chapter also balked at his attempt to bring his buddy, attorney Kirk Lyons, a known white supremacist, on board.
Edgerton became involved with many neo-confederate groups such as the Sons of Confederate Veterans. That group has some interesting backstory, some of it detailed here:
That group’s big shot leader, Ron Wilson, was later convicted of running a $60,000,000 ponzi scheme and sentence to a long prison term. H.K is seeking a presidential pardon for this thief and for this one.
Anyway, Edgerton has made quite the business for himself by offering to appear at neo-confederate events for the cool sum of $20,000 plus mileage. These groups love to parade someone of his race around insinuating that their agenda can’t possibly be racists, segregationist, or white supremacist if he endorses them.
For dietz1963 to cozy up to this guy, and to actually write things in his defense, is, well, somewhere between appalling and pathetic.
After a bunch of my comments were deleted, which took his replies with them, he accused me of deleting them. I responded:
“dietz1963, why would I flag yours for deletion? They are a gift to all from the universe of ignorance. Why would I remove evidence that YOU provided a link to a segregationist/white supremacist web site to support your position. It is much more likely that YOU deleted them to try and cover up your incompetence after I found you out.
You need to learn the difference between a “red herring” and evidence to support the current discussion.
You can call me a “troll” all you want but all I am doing is responding to your, now apparent, segregationist agenda.”
To which he said:
H.K. Edgerton, a black guy, previous president of the North Carolina chapter of the NAACP, is a white supremacist/segregationist? Then you’re what, accusing me of what again?
All you’re doing is making stuff up. No way no how am I anything close to your newest “label” of me. By your logic, my “responses” are to your black supremacist/segregationist agenda. Because by your logic, you must be one.”
I love it when dietz1963 uses the word “logic” in a comment since we know it will be embedded in a fallacy.
Then he added:
“There is a point of going too far AE and this time, you dang sure crossed the line.”
“Why don’t you and dolphind3 get together and call the cops?”
And with this comment he existed the thread:
“What part of going to far and crossing the line don’t you get?
I suppose he meant “out of here” but with dietz1963, one never knows considering he is “out there.”
I won’t litter the site with the entire background of what follows since much of it is already here, but what has transpired over on the Helena IR, is that I have taken commenter dietz1963 to task for just about all his transgressions at once. We’ve ended up with several threads under several articles with him trying to, and failing, to defend himself. (here, here, here, and here) I wrote one back this morning that, I think, is worth posting here since it nicely sums up the problem with dietz1963. Will this be the end of him? Will he change his ways? Not likely.
dietz1963, below, said “…unless you are my ex, show me the court documents.”
Who needs to? You’ve disclosed so much personal information about that tragedy yourself we all know the story quite well.
(I am still not clear on why you feel the need to disclose so much personal information about yourself in an anonymous forum and then complain when your personal information is tossed back at you. Are you just lame about the online world or so self-important that you want to flaunt your own failures?)
You said “I have explained, YET AGAIN about special ops. I have presented evidence enough…”
You haven’t presented anything that an 11-year old couldn’t look up online or make up after playing a few rounds of Call of Duty: Special Ops. Like I said before, if you are going to testify here as an authority then your credentials have to be open for scrutiny, otherwise, nothing you say regarding that has validity. Again, you exhibit a lack of knowledge about how things work in the anonymous online world and appear as quite the noob.
You said “You, like these kids, like to “pick apart” people statements to your own means…”
That is what discussions are all about. When you make a ridiculous, unsupportable statement, of course I will “pick apart” what you said. When I came on board here, you were more rabid than you are now and virtually every comment of yours was built upon one logical fallacy or another, generally going unchallenged. You would regularly “take apart” what others say (you still do) peppered with ad hominems and fallacious posits. You were/are a very easy target and I am not going to sit by and let that nonsense go by unchallenged. That you, and others get “riled up enough to have emotional outbursts whereby they also look foolish” isn’t my problem, but simply a side benefit of showing buffoonery where it exists.
You said “You aren’t about educating at all, more so mocking others to the point that you can have “that laugh” at someone else’s[sic] expense.”
Mockery is a technique that is an effective teaching tool at times. You have to understand that while it might be painful to the one being mocked, sometimes they are not the target of instruction. There are others who observe the process who can learn when they see a weak, unsupported, and ridiculous argument or claim collapse of a puff of logic. And this is most satisfying when the mockery is targeted at someone, like yourself, who puffs themselves up, feigns bravado, an “I’m always right” attitude, discloses personal things about themselves to add an air of authority, and expects others to kowtow to them. Very satisfying indeed.
You said “I really get tired of this creationism business because I picked one website from hundreds at random.”
So, now you are admitting that you knew nothing about the site and picked it at random. Why did you think that doing so would support your claim that scientists don’t know the age of the earth? Why didn’t you just admit your were wrong?
You said ” So I believe (can’t remember) much of the dating is by using either rocks from the moon or parts of metors[sic] they’ve found here on the earth. Thinking back to the class…”
You didn’t need to try and remember from a class that was probably a few decades ago. I provided a link to an October 2013 Scientific American that explains how scientist know the age of the earth. You obviously did not want to read it. Why is that? Instead you pick some random web site and say it is more trustworthy than Scientific American.
Well, you really stepped in it when that “random site” turned out to be a “young earth/creationist” site masquerading as a legitimate source of science news. Considering that the discussion was about “creationism,” you could not have made a worse move.
You see, dietz1963, this is a primary example of why you get attacked, not just by me, but by many on these threads:
– You make some claim (scientists do not know the age of the earth).
– Someone responds by providing source information to dispute that claim (the Scientific American article).
– You deny that evidence without even evaluating it.
– Then you toss out something (creationist web site) that neither disputes that evidence but obfuscates or attempts to change the topic (red herrings).
– When that technique is criticized you then deny that logic and reason are valid tools for assessing truth.
– Then you prance around like you won a debate.
What we see is someone who either does not have the cognitive skills to participate in a grown up discussions or someone who has spent so much of their life being intellectually lazy they can’t see how silly they look to others, or a bit a both.
You said “Clarified enough for you, this without the net. But I suppose you’ll discount that as well since I didn’t provide “proof””
You have made yourself perfectly clear, more than you will ever know.
Earlier on you said “I tend to apologize, and have, to those that warrant an apology.”
I think we all warrant one.
Over on the HelenaIR, they ran a story about a Helena High School alumni who was selected to be the guest speaker at graduation this year. This speaker, Kimberly Reed, was a “starting quarterback at Helena High and class valedictorian” who went on to have success in film making. Nothing controversial there, right? What? Kimberly? A quarterback? Yes, she was born Paul McKerrow and has made the transition to female.
As might be expected, that brought the pea-brains out from under their rocks in the comment section of the article. The intolerant are wringing their hands and questioning the selection process while spewing outrage over having someone from the LBGT community address the graduating class.
The article appeared on Wednesday of this week and by late on Thursday there were about 70 comments. Many/most were the usual suspects from various points of view, BUT by late that day about 1/3 of the comments had disappeared. Included in the vanishing act was ALL of my comments. I reposted several only to have them disappear again. I commented this morning about the problem and several others bemoaned this as well. Then those comments were gone.
The HelenaIR does not moderate the comments. Comments show up a minute or two after they are posted. However, anyone logged in to the site can click on the “Report/Abuse” button and that comment isn’t just flagged for removal, it is removed.
This problem did get the attention of the editor, Greg Lemon who posted this warning early Friday afternoon:
“We’re getting an awful lot of flagged comments on this story. Many of the comments flagged are not objectionable or abusive as outlined in our commenting policy. However, flagging comments out of spite is considered an abuse of the website. For instance if you find yourself going through and flagging all the comments by a specific user, you are abusing our site and the spirit of the commenting policy. Anyone found to be doing this will be banned from the site. I understand we have an imperfect commenting policy and system, but we’re trying to do the best we can with it. Please help us by respecting each other and the policy we’ve laid out.”
It would be nice to know who was doing the serial flagging. I have my guesses.
On the other hand, the fact that all of my comments were removed shows the impact that the truth they contain can have on the weak-minded, myth-believing, non-thinkers who live in fear that their house-of-cards world view is about to collapse.
I must be doing something right.
Over on the HelenaIR, there is a story about the Diocese of Helena releasing the names of people in their employ who committed crimes against children. As one might expect the comments have been an assortment of takes on the story.
I have made a few comments on the topic, completely keeping within the Commenting Policy, and have had one comment removed, as of this writing, 4 times. My comment was in response to coffeegirl1 who apparently, is an apologist of the diocese. She attempts to deflect the heat directed at the church with the logical fallacy Argumentum ad populum. Here is her comment:
coffeegirl1 – April 30, 2015 8:57 am
“They are doing the best that they can. I feel badly about this (yes I am Catholic) do you think it is “only” Catholic Priests/Nuns that have done this? There are other men of the cloth from other religons that have done unspeakable acts . Look at the bible before the “Catholic Church” was even formed. No, I am not excusing what was done. Money has been paid, assets have been liquidated. May those who have been harmed heal. Those who have done harm will answer to God”
Notice the “everyone is doing it” excuse?
Then, to one of my earlier, now removed comments, she posted:
“Atheiest Educator. You seem to be a very unhappy hateful person. Look at the dates. All of these people are deceased. At least the Catholic Church as stepped up and has done their best to make it right. Do you think this is the “only” church that has had corruption? Heck no. What about the PTL Club (Jim and Tammy Faye Baker) Jimmy Swaggert and all the TV Evangelist who are only TV daily swindeling people out of money. Every church has their share of corruption. Find me one that does not. The only perfect person that I know of was “Jesus Christ” and he gave his life for all of us, even you, but you would not know that because you are an Atheist.”
Again she invokes Argumentum ad populum. It is my reply that continues to be removed. Here it is:
“coffeegirl1 said “Atheiest Educator. You seem to be a very unhappy hateful person.”
And what evidence do you have to support that claim?
You said “At least the Catholic Church as stepped up and has done their best to make it right.”
No they didn’t. They only did what they did when forced into it by the secular world. They have spent decades covering up this mess AND moving these criminals around to avoid prosecution and allowing them to continue offending.
You ask “Do you think this is the “only” church that has had corruption?”
Of course not. Pretty much all churches have a degree of corruption since they and engaged in selling a story that cannot be substantiated and collecting money in doing so.
You said “What about the PTL Club (Jim and Tammy Faye Baker) Jimmy Swaggert and all the TV Evangelist who are only TV daily swindeling people out of money.”
You are making my case for me. Thanks.
You suggest “The only perfect person that I know of was “Jesus Christ” and he gave his life for all of us, even you, but you would not know that because you are an Atheist.”
Why would I not know about that? It is a very popular myth, sort of like Big Foot. I just choose not to believe in it, just like Big Foot.”
Weirdly, her response was placed under another part of the thread. This is because she couldn’t reply to my comment but she had read it.
coffeegirl1 – 18 hours ago
“Atheist Educator you wonder why I say you are an unhappy and hateful person? It seems all of your comments are mean and spiteful. This country was found under “One Nation Under God” Good Men and Women went to war to fight and die for everyone’s liberty and freedom even for people like you who deny God. I feel sorry for you on judgement day.”
Gee, where do we start?
“This country was found under “One Nation Under God”
I simply provided a bit of clarification for her:
“coffeegilr1, this country wasn’t founded under any god, yours or any of the other over 3,000 gods that mankind have invented.
If it were founded “Under God” then there would be some directive to let “God’s Law” trump man’s law in our Constitution. Rather, the Founders specifically kept your God out of our lawmaking.”
As for who is the coward who is so distressed over what I write that they want them removed, so far, they are still hiding instead of standing up to the truth I provide.
Here’s a case in point. He told us that he is divorced and that the court gave her the kids and half of “his” money. He rarely misses an opportunity to excoriate his ex-wife and whatever justice system he thinks caused him harm. It was him who told us that he was not part of his kids’ lives as a result of the divorce. Now he even confirms it with his feeble excuse in a remark to 5thgen:
“Yea, sounds like you know how it works, and like in all divorces, kids get to be adult age and they get to find out what “really happened”.”
What we have here is an admission, like I’ve been pointing out all along, that he did abandon his children.
I’ll tell you one thing for sure, dietz1963’s children’s teachers spent more time with them that he did.
Over on the HelenaIR, dietz1963 is trolling every thread I comment on “warning” others not to have contact with me. This futile attempt is pretty laughable and only shows that I have gotten to him in a big way.
This has been his “technique” since returning from his recent absence. Something tells me that he sought out some counseling and was advised to avoid me since it was obvious his anxiety level was rising precariously.
He’s also decided to have many of my comments, particularly those where I expose him as an empty suit, deleted from the site. What he fails to understand is that I save ALL my comments when posting them AND all my recent comments are still on the site and seen by clicking on my name. It’s a pretty simple matter to repost the comment after it disappears.
That he suggests that I have been deleting his comments is a scream. Why would I ever want his comments deleted when they speak for themselves as to his annoyance, dishonesty, and defeat?
I’m taking particular satisfaction in his frustration. After all, when I first signed on to the HelenaIR it was primarily to deal with his inane comments that peppered each thread like so much cow dung. He was running around and “shooting from the hip,” generally unchallenged, and I have, largely, changed that. Just looking at his most recent comments, the majority are about me. Knowing that I occupy so much of his diminutive intellect is a joy to behold.
For not the first time, AE has been told that AE will not only be headed for Hell, but two commenters on the HelenaIR are quite glad about that.
In a new thread, “Repent your ways,” a Bible-thumper is warning everyone to get good with God and quit being nice to our enemies because the end is near. In their screed they pulled out the old guilt-trip nonsense about
“…God died and shed his blood for you through his only begotten son-Jesus Christ and rose three days later…”
to which I suggested:
“That would make him a “zombie” wouldn’t it?”
“YOU disgust me
hope you burn”
“Dunno if there is a hades or not, but if there is i hope you have a nice room there.”
I, of course, counseled them that “zombie” was the correct word:
“The definition of a “zombie” is a “reanimated dead body” which is exactly what the Bible says happened.
Of course, there is an alternative explanation detailed in the classic book, and movie, from 1965, “The Passover Plot,” by Hugh Schonfield. It argues that the “Jesus-cult” of the day conspired to fake his death so they could pull off this “miracle.”
So, you have either a zombie or a fake. Which do you prefer to worship?”
Still waiting on an answer to that last question.
What is really funny is how countrydoc is asking for Christian Privilege:
“mocking christianity……….at easter? you really are clueless as you cant fathom WHY this might be very offensive to many.”
Yep, some of them would sure like to see the return of anti-blasphemy laws.