The Cowboy Who Wasn't There: E-book Companion Site

Monday, April 20, 2009

DC's Untimely Deterioration

DL frequenter and commentator Blogger user Andrew has notified us of the following in the previous post before mine:

News Flash! As of an hour or so ago, John has broken down!




John made an especially rambling rant last night, and received a number of well placed comments. He couldn't take it, and has...per his recent post...completely shut down comments!

Could it be true? Well.....

I regret to inform regular readers of this Blog of something I've just decided. I am not going to allow any more comments except from other team members here at DC.

There was never a doubt in my mind that this was bound to happen...

I’ve been online arguing for about five years or so. When I first got online in some forums and on some Blogs I was personally attacked and mocked because I revealed a lot of damaging information about myself in my previously self-published book, which was picked up by Prometheus Books, and is getting some astounding reviews. I was also impersonated as saying horrible things, which I never said. I was repeatedly lied about and personally maligned. So I felt compelled to defend myself and attacked back.

Give or take, things happen on the internet all the time. When you somehow gain popular attention on the web with a large following, you're going to have impersonators getting at your goat. I wonder what he means by "impersonators" anyway, cause if he is referring to the John W. Locust account, he still doesn't get the value of parody or what is obviously intended to be taken as fictional. The solution to the problem is just to brush it off your shoulder, and not let it nag at you like the devil with the pitchfork.

And then there's this bullshit about being "personally attacked and mocked" for revealing "a lot of damaging information about myself". WHAAAAAAAAA! I don't think so. Here's the link to where the Holding-Loftus conflict seeded itself. People need to be able to judge for themselves, but realistically speaking, John is just in a state of delusion, BIG TIME.

It's an interesting phenomenon really.

An "interesting phenomenon really"? No, NOT REALLY!

I post under my real name. So when personally attacked I can and did attack back. When I did so other readers thought to themselves what childish behavior of me, not considering how they would feel or respond to these personal attacks if they were to post in their real name.

This has no relevance to the issues whatsoever, Looney Tunes.

Some of the relationships I had with people who attacked me has degenerated to the point where all I do any more is blast them for their idiocy and deceit. I really do not care at all about some of these idiots.

You do that regardless. Anyone who criticizes you in a negative light is best described (by YOU mostly) as "ignorant", "idiots", "naive" and or uneducated. In order for someone to criticize you, they need to fufill the following criteria established by your exclusive standards of thinking:
1) We must have read John's book to a capital T. Without reading John's book, you can't deal with the arguments he publicly posts on his public blog.
2) You must be "nice" to John, even when he's being a complete "asshole" to put it into his own words. You must respect him, and you must also tone down your negative criticisms of him even on your own blog, otherwise you'll lose your priveleges to play in the DC sandbox.
3) You must be "rational" by John's own standards, whatever they are. Naturally I would question the standards set by an individual who makes up a sockpuppet blog just to gain vengance, and then when caught, outright denies any allegations of being responsible or taking responsibility even when in their own pockets of incoherence they admit to being responsible unintentionally as being pretty suspect.
4) You have to "come to the adult world of civilized discussion", whatever Loftus means by that. Just more of the same ass-kissing that John expects of the world.

These personal attacks are getting stronger and more and more desperate with each passing week, probably because I'm making a difference. And the Christians doing so are increasingly becoming frustrated because I will not link to them or mention their names, since they want to be noticed. A few of them have come out of the sewer of a particular forum to post comments here that are disrespectful and slanderous in order to disrupt the decent, civil discussion I have always wanted between believer and non-believer.

When Loftus blabs on like this, I am reminded in some aspect or another of Alfred Hitchcock's cinematic character figure, Norman Bates.

They think that atheists are angry and malicious people. But I appear to be decent and civil, until personally attacked, and I am. Unlike other atheists who just don’t give a damn, I do. I suppose that galls these ignorant Christians to no end. This can’t be, that an atheist cares about a civil, reasonable, and respectful discussion of the ideas that separate us. But I do. I have only wanted this.

I'll be fair and concede that John's "fairness" can have a temporary impression. But once a person gets to interacting with John more, we see that his egotist philosophy dictates how he perceives the world and social situations, even when the sane world castrates him for it, and rightly so.

Now the whole "atheists are angry and malicious people" is a bullshit strawman and John probably knows it. There are a handful of atheists and skeptics from TWeb which are openly accepted without any negative criticism on their records: CodewordConduit, Anon, The Moonshield, and myself are just a number of examples in an ever-growing group of people whom are not as stupid and as immoral as John and his like. In many instances, to say that most atheists are malicious and angry is not far from reality. In no such certain terms does John have the right to proclaim himself as an exception to the atheist stereotype and as the archetype for the 'friendly atheist'; such has already been claimed by other radical extremist groups such as the Rational Responders, who also fail to be consistent with their claims of peace and civil discourse.

I’ve decided that the time is to move on. I’ve got many things to do, not the least of which is to begin writing and editing a new book just accepted by Prometheus Books, which will include several great chapters in it, from some scholars and others you know from this blog.

And the book will more than likely be titled "Why I Rejected Christianity: A Former Preacher, Popular Blogger, and Enlightened Thinker/Former WLC Student Explains; The Revised 16th Edition".

This emphatically does NOT mean I will be posting any less here at DC. I will. It’s just that I do not want to spend the time responding to idiocy, especially from a few of the regular Christian commenters.

What was that about peace and civil discourse, which is usually tied in with tolerance?

For the record, and as an afterthought, to several Christians who were banned from DC but kept coming back anyway, sometimes 3 and 4 times a day with slanderous comments, you didn't win anything. In fact, I thank you for teaching me that it can be useless to try to reason with you. I was only beating my head against the wall with the likes of you. I'm better off realizing this.

This "interesting phenomenon" John is describing here is the point in which his behavioral monitor has gone so far off the radar he has resorted to bashing his head against a brick wall until he is left with only but a nice mix of pulp and scrambled eggs.

Already Christians are seriously claiming that one reason I decided not to allow comments is because I could not deal with their arguments. And this comes from the very idiots I spoke about!

That sounds like something you think goes on when people lash out at you John. You fail to recognize that the true reasons for you being flogged by others (i.e., the folks at TWeb) is because you are dishonest, self-serving, and intolerant of others. Get a clue why don't you?

Onto another entry of John's which intrigues me:

While briefly watching Episode 9 of The Amazing Race on CBS tonight, I wondered to myself if I should bother any more with debunking Christianity. It's already debunked. The final nail is in the coffin. The nail is our contact with a global world. We're now in a global society. The contestants are in China. Watch the video and tell me that the Chinese are not reasonable people with morals and concerns that all humans share.

My, oh my, oh my, oh my......ignorance abounds.

Sometime mid-last month I suggested (humorously) that John should go work for Google and become a Communist. What does this have anything to do with China? Read on, kiddies:

In case John or his bud buds happen to question the authority of the source, I will remind them that the BBC is the same broadcasting network that has its affliations with many of Richard Dawkin's television programs.

Does John think before he types? Many if not most of countries in the far eastern reaches of Asia are propaganda machines that pass themselves off as things they are not. Asians hold a sense of traditional integrity and honor to the point where it is embedded into their skulls. It doesn't take an anthropologist to realize this. I personally have spoken to those who have visited China for themselves, and their testimonies have collaborated that of many of its rumored discussions. One such example is the amount of pollution in China, which was only dispelled temporarily for this year's Olympic games:

And while I'm at it, if you really want to see whether Christianity makes a difference, become a preacher. Go ahead. I dare you. You'll see Christianity in action like never before with the veil removed. Or, become a scientist, a psychologist, real a Biblical scholar or a biblical archaeologist. Wake up. Become informed. There is no amazing in amazing grace. It's hogwash plain and simple. [Sorry]

Treading on dangerous grounds there, Johnny. Best to be outright with everyone including yourself that fundamentalism was the starting basis for your faith, and it was also the destructive factor.


  1. The best part is that he links to the astounding reviews of his book.

    That will never get old.

  2. It's only good for the comic value. That aside, I find it highly irritating and something Loftus needs to put to an immediate halt.

    But of course Loftus doesn't have any balls, so all he has his is book, and it's tragic.

  3. I have no idea why John stopped allowing comments.

    There are many other popular and controversial blogs, where the person running them simply has no time to respond and more or less just lets people debate the arguments among themselves.

    No matter what you may think of him, people on both sides of these issues did learn something there.

    Maybe this can serve as an opportunity to provide a new venue for these debates.

  4. I for one will allow this blog to serve as that venue. It's been my policy from day one that censorship is a no no.

    Honestly, is there any point in having a debate blog when you aren't willing to debate?

  5. Quick hit-and-run...

    Channel 4 has broadcast Dawkins' shows (Root of All Evil, Genius of Charles Darwin, Enemies of Reason), not sure that I know of any BBC-broadcasted ones.

    The BBC is generally a good source for news; it is the only station funded exclusively by license-payers, no advertisements. If there was a problem with the accuracy of the repoting then you could pretty much guarantee a swathe of angry license payers would descend into London, enraged. BBC costs every household about $15 a month and we can't even opt out >:(



If you are unaware of the rules on comments, please consult this post for more information.

Complaints and suggestions about the blog's comment moderation policies should be addressed here.

READ BEFORE POSTING: Do not post comments if they do not deal with the topic addressed in our posts and ESPECIALLY if they deal with pointing out the hypocricy of Christians and the flaws of the Christian religion. This is not about issues of sensitivity but maintaining an atmosphere of freshness and relevant discourse. ANYONE posting these comments (in the event they do NOT deal with the topics we have introduced) will have their comments deleted without warning. Post with care and attention to this simple request, thank you.

NOTE: This blog mirrors Debunking Christianity in that we allow only registered users of Blogger and Google accounts in commenting on our web pages. Anonymous commentators are not permitted.