Johnny Boy Bans Myself (and Others) as Always....

Well no suprise here. I myself saw it coming. There was no reason in my mind to doubt that this would happen partly because of John's first comment here:

John W. Loftus said...
I see Holding is a blog member here and on another site. Is he fixiated on me or something? Hi JP!

You do realize the patent inconsistency with this very site, don't you? Surely this won't escape the attention of any reasonable person. For if my arguments are lame and ridiculous then you wouldn't even bother with me.

This blog will eventually fizzle out like the others. Fleas are what they are and they serve as a compliment to my work.

But if you don't wish to be banned over at DC then come up to the civilized world. We have the HTML text to do so and I will.

Because this is MY blog in the strict sense, I let John know that I wasn't going to back down from his efforts to intimidate me by having me suck up to him:

Hey John: Have you ever heard of FREEDOM OF SPEECH?

You're on my turf when you post here. I don't have to follow any of your blog's rules while you post comments here. If you want to ban me, you have every right to do so, but don't expect the free reign to come onto my blogs and try to defend your prideful insecurities. My blogs are around to stay for as long as I say they are, and no matter what you try to do to stop me from commentary, I have plans of keeping them up on the net permanently.

I suppose John expects that I should offer him an apology because his feelings were hurt, but that ain't happening. What I'm arguing is a depiction of the boundaries our blogs are allowed to touch upon: He can censor all he likes over at Debunking Christianity, and I will let people (even those who highly disagree with this blog and everything that it is) to speak. It's a fair statement of reality because John is in control of his blog and I am in control of this one. So John can make up whatever rules he likes and can censor anyone he thinks are worthy of censorship on his blog, just as I can allow anyone on this blog to have near-free reign here, even if they are Loftus supporters. Additionally, John can't take my right away to say whatever the hell I want too say here, and he can't dictate what its heightened tone will be. It's pretty obvious though, that John doesn't see things in that scope and can't handle the idea of NOT being in control of things. And there are plenty of examples to show for this, but first, let's skim over John's official confirmation that (and some other unnamed people, including of course Veil of Absence) have been silenced from posting comments. Here we go:

John W. Loftus said...
TruthBeTold and other Holding wannabe's, You are banned for violating the comment policy. I will not allow this Blog to degenerate into childish juvenile personal attacks. If I didn't do this the Blog would degenerate into name calling back and forth.

Have the integrity to abide by my wishes. This is not censorship. You have a blog to speak your drivel if you wish. The government cannot make me give you an audience to say whatever it is you want to say no more than it can make churches give me as an atheist equal time in the pulpit.
1:40 AM, March 12, 2009

Yeah...it's nothing more than allot of whining. Basically, by John playing in on his insecurities and low self-esteem, he thinks by making it as though he is crushing a small ill-intended rebellion that he will be seen as the bringer of justice. Well, like I've mentioned before, John can do whatever the hell he wants to do with his blog. It's his right, and I'm not so worried about being banned that I would be willing to get "the government" involved. Honestly John, if you're going to whine, have a little backbone in doing so instead of making it all about you, YOU, YOU.

And if the fact that John also took the liberty in banning Veil of Absence from discussion doesn't convince you that he's an egomaniacal control freak, then I would believe you need serious psychiatric consulation like our dear friend John here (in a rare blink of an eye, Loftus actually quoes Absence just after removing his comment from DC permanently, so we thank John that he has provided us with some more confirmation of his ulter-ego personality):

John W. Loftus said...
Veilof Absence wrote: "Insults, personal attacks, accusations of dishonesty; all of that is fine... if it's you and your buddies doing it. Anyone else does it and, well, that's just not acceptable."

If Holding & company never resorted to insults we would never throw them back at him. This is about as non-controversial and obvious as it gets. The problem is that whenever I allow such an element like that into this Blog it degenerates into name calling like I see over at your anti-Loftus Blog. Again, if Holding & company truly wanted a civil exchange of ideas then name calling would not be tolerated on our side of the fence. Since I actually want to discuss the issues that separate us rather then degenerate into name calling I must take action to stop it, and I have done so. You are banned also. Please have the personal integrity to stay away.

If and when you or your cronies want to enter the adult civilized world of discourse and can show a sincere effort at doing so then you may come back.
2:40 AM, March 12, 2009

I don't have any way of proving this to my blog readers, but, my so called degenerative comments were addressing fine points to such well-informed individuals like LJGPMH about comments such as these:

LJGPMH said...
LJGPMH wrote:

Are you going to give LPOT a royalty for that one, Bobby?
9:09 PM, March 11, 2009

My response to this individual consisted of two likely probabilities: His Blogger account (formed fairly recently in March of 2009) was registered in order to get on DC using outdated resources about JP Holding's "pseudonym." This argument, in fact, has absolutely no bearing merit as of this month Holding legally changed his name from Robert Turkel to his now former pseudonym, James Patrick Holding over two years ago. Now...does that sound anything to what Loftus referred to as "name calling" and "degenerate"? I, don't know of any names or insults that I publically posted on Debunking Christianity towards John. I merely pointed out that their arguments were simplistically shallow and some of the responses I was receiving from common DC guests were not of the slightest intelligence at all. No name calling or ad hominen attacks as far as I can tell from my part. And if Johnny wants to talk about names, he can explain himself after having called me an "asshole" on his own site, which he claims to keep free of "degenerate" comments.

Actually, this might be something that is out of Loftus' hands. No, not his blog, but his sanity. Someone other than myself or any other Holding advocate brought up something on Loftus' blog dealing with how he reacts to people and interprets certain acts of socialization and turns them upside down on their heads. And believe me, this guy doesn't seem to be a big fan of our blog, either:

Eric said...
"Being ridiculed and mocked motivates me like nothing else."

John, don't you think that this puts too much power into the hands of other people?

Don't get me wrong, I've been motivated by ridicule in the past too, but I'm now much more motivated by looking at the outstanding achievements of others and, using my interests and passions as a guide, doing my best to emulate (supersede?) them. This puts me in control.

Also, I could understand if a serious conservative scholar such as Craig Evans mocked you: this would be motivating not so much because of the mocking itself, but because it was coming from a highly respected and accomplished scholar, and therefore likely has something behind it. But when a vulgar know-nothing like Holding mocks you, why let it get to you? I'd liken it to being called lazy by drug dealer on welfare; who's he to talk about my work ethic, and why in the world should I give a rat's rear end what he thinks about it anyway?
8:00 PM, March 11, 2009

John W. Loftus said...
Eric, how dare you decide to give me your amateur armchair psychologist diagnosis! I didn't ask for it. This is just who I am. Get the point. I'm sure if you were as revealing about yourself I would find lots of good advice to give you. Take any unasked for advice of yours to where it belongs, to Holding. He's the one who needs it. Google his name and find out about him, okay? Then try to offer him and his ilk some good psychological and Christian advice, if you can.
9:10 PM, March 11, 2009

Eh....what? "Armchair psychologist diagnosis"? Did anyone who just happened to read the preceding comment prior to this one see any fancy schmancy labels touted by "armchair psychologists"? There's no way that John could possibly be losing his marbles, for that one would be unheard of for a prominent atheist like himself.

Moving on:

Eric said...
"Eric, how dare you decide to give me your amateur armchair psychologist diagnosis! I didn't ask for it. This is just who I am. Get the point."

Overreact much here, John?

First it wasn't anything *remotely* like an 'armchair psychological analysis,' so I have no idea what you're talking about. I was simply stating the obvious -- it's just plain *stupid* to give morons who mock you that much control over you.

Second, you, on the other hand, *in fact* get *much* closer to such amateurish psychological diagnoses with your sloppy ascription of psychological disorders to theists of all stripes, so save me the feigned outrage, okay?

Third, the 'this is just who I am' bit doesn't wash. You're the one who said how much you enjoy improving yourself, and I think it's all but self evident -- even to the non-psychologists among us! -- that the less influence a clown like Holding has on you, the better off you are.

Finally, if you want to limit the discussion about your motivations and the like in certain ways, try being clear about it in the future (and I'll happily oblige you) instead of jumping down the throat of someone who simply says the obvious when commenting on a post you decided to make public.
10:25 PM, March 11, 2009

John W. Loftus said...
Eric, while I may characterize believers as a whole in certain ways I do not presume to hand out unasked for personal psychological advice. You could always show that you're a fairminded person by trying to hand some of this advice out to Holding, so until you do I have reason to think you unfairly targeted me when Holding should be your target. Imagine telling a victim of harrassment to get over it but not telling the harrasser to grow up!? And then having the balls to justify this. And then not seeing the disconnect with the lack of objectivity in weighing the evidence and arguments for your faith. I say if one is lacking this is evidence that the other is as well.

Sheesh.
1:56 AM, March 12, 2009

I don't particulary agree with Eric on his description of Holding (but neither do I agree with JP on everything either), but I'm sure the reason why Eric doesn't want to be "fairminded" to Holding is because he, unlike Loftus, chooses to follow his own advice and does not have want to have any contact with him. Anyways, this is typical behavioral phenomena that John exhibits once being confronted with his weaknesses and inconsistencies. But John's ego lives on, and he must defend it at all costs, even if it means killing brain cells.

John W. Loftus said...
Besides, Eric, to say the victim empowers the victimizer when he's motivated from his experience to try to stop all all future victimizers is complete rubbish. They motivate me because I see in them the same kind of reasoning that was used to dehumanize and depersonalize non-believers in the past who were subsequently burned at the stake. yes, I take that very personally. I want to create a climate where people can disagree freely with each other without these kinds of personal attacks. To do so I must argue against the Christian faith.
3:00 AM, March 12, 2009

John's second consecutive post in a row yet filled with more melodramatic aspects and exaggerating emotions. If John truly believes that JPH is the big green hairy monster he tries to paint out him to be, then he's even more of a loser than he would if he was just delibrately saying this for the sake of attention and sympathy. And boy do we TWebbers know just how much of a self-sympathetic whiner John is. John's modus operandi: "When confronted with a situation you can't seem to back up out of, direct the focus on Holding!"

Eric said...
John: "You could always show that you're a fairminded person by trying to hand some of this advice out to Holding, so until you do I have reason to think you unfairly targeted me when Holding should be your target...Imagine telling a victim of harrassment to get over it but not telling the harrasser to grow up!?"

Eric: "But when a vulgar know-nothing like Holding mocks you, why let it get to you?...it's just plain *stupid* to give morons who mock you that much control over you...the less influence a clown like Holding has on you, the better off you are."

You're right John -- I was 'targeting you' and when I should've been 'targeting' Holding.Now I see, as I reread what I wrote above, that I was just too nice to ol' JP -- look at all the glowing compliments I gave him! -- and was patently unfair to you (how dare I suggest that it's somehow 'bad' to put morons, clowns, and vulgar know-nothings in the driver's seat?!) And perhaps 'JP should grow up' is clearer than calling him a clown, a vulgar know nothing, and a moron.As Ed Feser once said to you, 'Are you for real, Buddy?'

"Eric, while I may characterize believers as a whole in certain ways I do not presume to hand out unasked for personal psychological advice."Are you claiming that you've never labelled any specific theist -- on any forum -- as 'delusional' or something of that sort? If what I did could be categorized as 'unasked for personal psychological advice,' then much of what you've said to specific people could be as well. As I see it, neither what I did nor what you do could legitimately be characterized as instances of this, but whatever...I'm just using your overly broad criteria to showcase what can only be described as your hypocrisy -- and I'm sorry to say this John, because I like you.
7:42 AM, March 12, 2009

John W. Loftus said...
So basically Eric, you will not offer Holding any unasked for psychological advice, eh, to set him straight?Figures. You're becoming a waste of time. You'd argue with me just to argue, wouldn't you?
8:13 AM, March 12, 2009

analuon said...
You're losing it Loftus.
9:59 AM, March 12, 2009

John W. Loftus said...
analuon, perhaps. Maybe I should just take a break. I assure you I need one when it comes to arguing against beliefs I consider to have no more basis than that of Elves with people who are so sure they're right they personally attack me for this.
10:08 AM, March 12, 2009

Eric said...
"You're becoming a waste of time. You'd argue with me just to argue, wouldn't you?"

Now there's something we just might agree on, though the indexicals have opposite referents.
12:15 PM, March 12, 2009

John W. Loftus said...
"Eric Said...Now there's something we just might agree on, though the indexicals have opposite referents."

Yes indeed, you stick your indexical where it doesn't belong and then you suck on it. As far as I know you're a momma's boy. That's the first impression of you and it sticks with me today. Someone who was taught he was bettert than others and who's Mommy would always come rescue him whenever he's in trouble. I'll bet with so much time on the web you don't even have to work because she's paying most of the bills. And you presume to hand out unasked for advice. Sheesh. You too grow up. Shake off that Freudian oedipus complex and get yourself a girlfriend for a change. [Quotes added.]
6:34 PM, March 12, 2009

Eric is more than likely not interested in associating with us, but I would like to thank his comments for demonstrating just how much of a psycho creep Loftus is. Thank you Eric, for telling Loftus as it is. This also serves as an example of Loftus' continual hypocricy for bashing JPH's contempt for certain Christians, because no matter how much contempt you get for another person, whether they share your beliefs or not, no one can outdo John W. Loftus.