In order to maintain "consistency" John makes several response posts to this blog without officially calling us out by name or blog title. He figures no one will notice because his audience is stupid and gullible enough to believe it or to justify John for making these responses out of ambiguity. His expectations and standards he sets for his subscribers may not be far off from what is reality, and in that sense we may call John a realist.
So as of early this morning (by the way folks, I shouldn't even be here doing this this early in the morning; I had ROTC class today but missed out because my alarm didn't go off when it was supposed too) John says:
Around the web I have several detractors. They accuse me of a few things which I’d like to take the time to answer. I’m accused of being an egotistical self-promoting control freak who censors comments at DC and kicks off this Blog anyone who disagrees with me. I’m accused of wanting fame and financial gain and that I am cheating the authors in my new edited book, The Christian Delusion, out of their expected royalties.
I’ve tried to resist responding to such drivel. I know that I cannot satisfy the people making such charges as I’ve responded to some of them several times already. I also know that by responding I’ll give them more fodder. But I just want to respond to my readers so they know the truth even if others won’t accept my answers.
You sure have responded to us "several times already" in a very coherent and specific manner, haven't you John? But another thing you won't voluntarily mention is that this is a fairly new and recent charge being brought against you. So you haven't responded to this one yet at all. You are cunning like a snake but as dumb as a box of rocks, my friend. And whowouldathunk, if John didn't go into some sort of self-justifying modus operandi with the complementary victimization complex.
In the first place, even if these accusations are true, which they are not, they do not make me a bad person. Just think of the things Hollywood stars are accused of every day. I’m not being accused of anything like they are. And these accusations do nothing to answer my arguments. I’m told someone will be publishing a book filled with these kind of accusations. I won’t dignify that person by mentioning his name, but he thinks the justification for doing so is because Elijah, Jesus and Paul railed against their opponents. Leaving that bogus justification aside, the truth is that Christians have accused their detractors of some of the most heinous crimes merely because they attacked their faith. So I stand in a long line of skeptics who have been falsely accused simply because I’m doing so. The real question is why they are focusing on these things rather than answering my arguments. I suspect it’s because they can’t respond to my arguments. If they could do so, then why don’t they?
You never learn, do you, John? But you're preaching to the choir here. Your "arguments" are indiscernable from who you just happen to be. You've made this known on numerous occassions. Your "drive" to debunk Christianity comes from your personal feud with Holding, and nothing more. YOU said that. No one else. You have also said that your goal is to debunk JP's "certain faction" of Christianity, rather than the whole picture. Your arguments are not only based on personal issues of seeking revenge against your long-time internet foe, they are limited in scope, and purposely done so. That in itself pretty much goes for "answering" your arguments.
Am I egotistical? So what if I am? Am I a self-promoter? Why shouldn't I be? Do I want financial gain? Why not? Do I want fame? Who doesn’t? An egotistical person is usually in the eye of the beholder anyway, and since it takes one to know one, the person making that accusation is probably more affected by that disease.
Elementary school logic is not going to get you anywhere from the face of criticism. This is not based on the answerability of your arguments. It's because you're pathetic. You play on the notions of relative perceptions to make justifications for your own immoral actions. You probably would be best described as an anarchist in terms of your political sways. But by playing on relativism, you are digging yourself further into a hole, and sensible people will begin to think less of you. It does not matter whether your "detractors" are atheist or Christian, you'll find something to accuse them of being, while you yourself are portrayed in a honest and ethical light. You're a coward John. Cowards are only good for running, and, as you seem to be a fan of cliches, "you can run, but you can't hide."
The truth about me is that I lack a whole lot of self-esteem. I’m never satisfied with my efforts. I always find fault with them. I continually think I don’t measure up. So when people tell me I did something great I get excited about it. If I appear egotistical then it’s merely because I’m overjoyed and excited that people tell me I did something great. This is what people are telling me about my efforts to debunk Christianity. And fame is a double edged sword, anyway. The more famous a person is the more that person has problems.
We've been saying that all along, John. At least I have if nobody else. But you should probably learn to establish a better self-esteem. I don't have the greatest self-esteem in the world. I certaintly have my own set of potholes. Do I let these things get ahead of my thinking and allow for them to construct personal agendas? No. By your logic, anyone who criticizes you has more problems, or at least they share the load in whatever disease they accuse you of having. So if your "detractors" have a better time dealing with the same disease that you have than you do, it still falls back on your face. You can't escape your inevitable blame here.
As far as financial gain goes, when I got my first (and only) royalty statement for my book Why I Became an Atheist, it said I owe them $1,100. I don't actually owe them any money. It's just that it hasn't produced enough sales to merit any more than the couple thousand dollars they advanced me. Yeah. I’m in it for financial gain…right! I barely make a living as it is. This winter I had some water damage to my house and had to use some of the insurance money to pay long over due bills. I didn't have the money to fix the house completely, so this is what my living room ceiling looks like (see picture). My porch ceiling and a wall in another room look just as bad. THAT’S why I appreciate any financial help I can get from people who click on the donate button in the sidebar.
Alright, we'll give John the benefit of the doubt here. I'm going to check out his donation entry and see what it says as being reflective of this statement. Let's see:
Help me stay alive in these hard economic times. I need your help. I need people who are willing to donate on a regular basis, a monthly commitment if you can. Unless more money comes in I’ll be forced to get a second job. Spinoza ground lenses during the day and researched at night. What if he had to have two jobs? I’m no Spinoza by a long shot, but what if Spinoza never had to grind lenses and could research and write all day long? How much better would his arguments be?
Is it possible for John to get a second job in academia? Expand upon the scholarly credentials perhaps?
Here's what I don't understand: John constantly brags about the reviews his book receives, and now, when it is most convenient, he says that his book doesn't make enough sales. He says that he isn't bringing in enough income due to "hard economic times" (you have your own vote to thank for that one, John). If it is such a matter of difficulty and hardship, why doesn't John just consider free publishing? Does it make him less of a serious author if he were to go with a free publisher like LuLu? I'm not doubting that maybe John doesn't do it merely for profit (although I don't know if I necessarily believe him; how can I trust him about anything he says?), but he could at least make 20 times more than what he does for every book sold. From LuLu's website:
During the publishing process, Users are asked to choose the amount of creator revenue they will receive for each piece of Content sold. If Lulu sells your content, and we receive payment, Lulu will pay you the creator revenue amount you chose. In general, Lulu's service fee is 20% of the gross margin resulting from the sale of Content. The gross margin is the net amount actually received for your Content after freight and manufacturing costs are subtracted.
For example, if a User publishes a book that costs $5.00 to manufacture and chooses to receive $4.00 in Creator Revenue, Lulu will set the price of your book as follows:
|Lulu service fee:||$1.00|
|Final price of book:||$10.00|
In this example, the gross margin is $5.00, of which you get 80% ($4.00) and Lulu gets 20% ($1.00). Regardless of the foregoing, the minimum mark-up for Lulu's service fee is nineteen cents ($0.19). However, if you choose to make your Content free, Lulu waives its service fee altogether. Exceptions to the 20% margin rule may be applied in the case of special offers or discounts to Users who purchase their own Content in bulk.Plus, another benefit is that there is no limit to the amount of content in a given project. So, why not go free?
I think John is relunctant because he wants to have the spotlight that Promotheus provides. I say, however, that it would be much better if John were to have a general publisher, instead of an atheist one. Sure his book is much more likely to be found with an atheist publisher, but aside from this I see no merits in doing so. The publishing company is already in agreement with what John probably has to say. Additionally, I wouldn't appreciate my scholarly work being on par with pornographic literature.
I have a few internet stalkers, several trolls here at DC, a few websites dedicated to trashing me, along with one published book against me and two more promised ones coming down the pike. They say you can tell how famous a person is by the number of stalkers he or she has. Well I have some. Woooo! Hoooo! The problem is that people hate me for what I’m doing. I’m not famous. I’m infamous. Yeah, that’s what I want…right.
Stalkers? Where do you come up with this stuff? Where's your evidence? Proof? Yeah, that's right, you have none. Just a whole bunch of paranoia as far as I'm concerned. And until anything is documented and not something that is just your mere speculation, that's all it ever be.
As far as my new edited book goes, I rejected five chapters written by five different authors for various reasons having to do with word limit concerns, deadlines, and content. These were tough decisions, but I had to make them. By doing so I pissed off one person, maybe more. But I still had to do it.
Fair enough. I wouldn't want to make a defense of McCall by any means, unless it concerns moral deviations.
I only “censor” comments here at this Blog by the same standards any newspaper editor uses when deciding whether to publish a “Letter to the Editor.” That’s because I want a civilized and intelligent discussion of the ideas that separate us, or none at all.
Repeating it does not make it so. The use of the world "asshole" when referring to someone who says something in a way you do not like, is also the wrong way to go about it, if that's your genuine intention.
As far as kicking team members off DC who don’t agree with me goes, I open myself up to this accusation because I allow people to become team members here in the first place. This is my Blog. It’s my house. I invite guests here into my house. If they don’t respect me or if they somehow begin to think they own it, there can be problems. It's something like herding cats.
Agreeably understandable. But it doesn't really address anything if the issue concerns disagreement, as opposed to disrespect, which are two entirely different things.
Nearly all of the other Bloggers who have left DC fall into one of two categories. They either did not publish often enough or they asked to be removed for various reasons unrelated to me.
They didn't "publish enough", John? DC seems pretty staffed as it is. Why insist on having a posting quota if you have so many authors that are willing to contribute in the first place? You don't need one to get going. On average there are about 4-5 posts made every week on your blog, with about 1-3 of those being your own? That's just the typical average. I make most posts around here and I believe some members have expressed their desire to be taken off from the list. I haven't removed them yet because things are liable for change. But it's your blog, John. Unlike you, I won't chastize you for running things your own way, even if I question your motives and boundaries.
There are other accusations. Expect them. Just tell my accusers to produce evidence, think about them, and then tell these accusers to try to answer my arguments.
John wants EVIDENCE? Are you kidding me? This isn't a challenge and anyone asking for this "evidence" will be provided with it asap. I'm not going to repost it for the umpteenth time though, as I and others have beaten this to death before in the past. Contrary to what John might believe, the book that is coming out contains a whole compiled chronology of such evidence of the reasons why John isn't very trustworthy. The book will put an end to the question of whether or not the evidence actually exists, which it does. But it's rather surprising, that John, without revealing any specifics to his blog "trolls" would demand evidence of why he shouldn't be trusted. John, don't make this the end of the road for you, for your own sake.
NOTE: Once again, something of our interest coming from John has come up again. In the same post we've cited here, John removed some comments he didn't approve of, most likely after they had been brought to the world's attention through TheologyWeb, a site John claims he ignores as much as possible. The catch? John claims to be on "vacation" and won't return until August 27, meaning that only his fellow bloggers can post comments. Or can they?
In a long past case similar to this, John claimed at the very end to having put on an act to somehow demonstrate the inferiority of his critics. But surely enough, the only thing he seems to demonstrate effectively is his own inferior mentality.