tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post1599625180611515745..comments2023-06-24T01:15:34.627-07:00Comments on The Skeptic Zone: im-skepticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comBlogger89125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-14614231013372138562018-09-30T09:59:00.702-07:002018-09-30T09:59:00.702-07:00I've heard similar remarks from others. With ...I've heard similar remarks from others. With regard to Coyne, I simply don't understand Feser's behavior. Coyne never uses the kind of inflammatory rhetoric that Feser often employs, and yet if you listen to the attacks Feser (and others) direct at him, you'd think Coyne was the nastiest person around. This only encourages incivility among his fans. Reppert's articles used to make similar attacks against "gnus", but he seems to have toned it down somewhat lately.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-42829327251391948232018-09-29T21:14:24.810-07:002018-09-29T21:14:24.810-07:00I never had good experiences on Feser's blog. ...I never had good experiences on Feser's blog. My experiences in the past (granted they were probably 5 years ago, or possibly a bit more) were that Feser had an unfiltered blog with probable psychopaths attacking atheists or anyone who directly contradicted Thomism. <br /><br />When I say "Psychopaths", I mean it literally. Feser has, or use to have, some fans who seemed so without empathy for anyone that the best explanation for their behaviour is some form of psychopathy. <br /><br />In any case, atheists seemed to be routinely attacked unfairly, and even theists who attacked Thomism were treated as idiots. One Christian philosopher, Trent Dougherty, said some remarks that Feser's fans disliked, and rather than critique his points, they not only shit on him, but they accused him of being an atheist. Not even fellow theists could escape the verbal raping Feser's fans would give so long as the theists disliked some aspect of Thomism. <br /><br />Unless things have changed, I would never recommend an atheist bother talking on Feser's or Reppert's blogs. Similarly for theists, I'd never recommend they bother talking on Loftus' blog or the Friendly Atheist blog. Ryan Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15738381414795204410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-64510433842757546082018-09-14T15:39:43.326-07:002018-09-14T15:39:43.326-07:00It is irrelevant that Coyne was referring to a dir...<i>It is irrelevant that Coyne was referring to a direct quote about Hart's book. He was nonetheless criticizing what Hart said without reading the book.</i><br />- Coyne was writing about what appeared in a review. You and Feser are both trying to make that out to be something nefarious. You are both full of shit.<br /><br /><i>Moreover, for the umpteenth time, Feser criticize's Coyne's opinions as expressed in his piece---not the opinions of others</i><br />- And Coyne commented on what was related in the review. SO WHAT?<br /><br /><i>Sigh. The definition of objection is: ... </i><br />That's not THE definition. <a href="https://www.wordnik.com/words/objection" rel="nofollow">THIS</a> is a more relevant definition, which describes what you have been doing:<br /><br /> n. A statement presented in opposition.<br /><br /><i>I did not disagree;</i><br />- You have disagreed with everything. You show no hint of charity in your reading of either Coyne or myself. Like Feser, you can only accept the most uncharitable understanding of it. If that's the way you insist on being, you're wasting your time here.<br /><br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-87028735661923605032018-09-14T14:13:11.955-07:002018-09-14T14:13:11.955-07:00It is irrelevant that Coyne was referring to a dir...It is irrelevant that Coyne was referring to a direct quote about Hart's book. He was nonetheless criticizing what Hart said without reading the book. We all know Coyne didn't read the book, <b>and Feser pointed that out in his post!</b> You don't criticize a book you haven't read. Coyne said he would read it and had purchased a copy. He should have kept his trap shut until he could evaluate it himself. You're the one playing the "quibbling games" when it's clear Coyne was taking the opportunity to criticize a book he hadn't read. The fact that he used the comments of others to do so is all the more dishonorable.<br /><br />Moreover, for the umpteenth time, Feser criticize's Coyne's opinions as expressed in his piece---not the opinions of others.<br /><br /><i>You didn't think what I said was true. and you still don't. That sounds like an objection to me.</i><br /><br />Sigh. The <a href="https://www.dictionary.com/browse/objection?s=t" rel="nofollow">definition</a> of <b>objection</b> is:<br /><br /><i>1. a reason or argument offered in disagreement, opposition, refusal, or disapproval.</i><br /><br />I did not disagree; I asked for evidence. That's called suspending judgment until the facts can be evaluated. Hence, I could not have opposed, refused to believe or disapprove of your comment since, as I clearly stated, I would readily agree once I was able to see the evidence myself. You need to learn the difference between suspending judgment and an objection.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001130202947985336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-40201318525388925942018-09-14T13:59:59.097-07:002018-09-14T13:59:59.097-07:00You mean he never said: ...
- Coyne was referring ...<i>You mean he never said: ...</i><br />- Coyne was referring to a direct quote, which he obviously did read. And once again, he made it perfectly clear that he didn't read the book. His commentary, in general, was on what Burkeman wrote about the book. Don't play your stupid little quibbling games with me.<br /><br /><i>this is also singled out by Feser as being patently false.</i><br />- I think Feser is wrong. The quote was about a view of God that comes from Tillich - the ground of being that can't even be said to "exist" in the sense that we generally understand. That is a modern view, as far as I know.<br /><br /><i>Further proof? I didn't "object" to your "original statement." I respectfully asked for a link so that I could evaluate for myself the content of your exchanges with Feser.</i><br />- You didn't think what I said was true. and you still don't. That sounds like an objection to me. And you've taken issue with everything I have said in this whole exchange. As far as I can tell, you're nothing but a troll.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-46734225023491290922018-09-14T13:20:42.136-07:002018-09-14T13:20:42.136-07:00On the contrary, I've been all ears, but you&#...On the contrary, I've been all ears, but you're unwilling to supply any evidence. I've repeatedly told you that I'm willing to agree if I could but see any of your exchanges with him, but I guess you missed the multiple times I've said that.<br /><br />Coyne wasn't criticizing the book? You mean he never said:<br /><br /><i>Hart claims [made in his book] that this is the conception of God that has prevailed throughout most of history, but I seriously doubt that. Aquinas, Luther, Augustine: none of those people saw God in such a way.</i><br /><br />Not only does he directly reference Hart and his book, this is also singled out by Feser as being patently false. The fact that I have to point things like this out to you shows that you're only commenting to save yours and Coyne's faces. You're not paying attention at all.<br /><br />Further proof? I didn't "object" to your "original statement." I respectfully asked for a link so that I could evaluate for myself the content of your exchanges with Feser. My experience there is completely different from yours, and I've read a good many of the replies to skeptical posters and have seen none of the rudeness you cite excepting from a few Catholic trolls.<br /><br />Not only did you miss why I posted my anti-trinitarian link, you're even flubbing why I began posting here---even after careful explanation! I suggest you look in the mirror if you want to find somebody with blinders on who's unwilling to listen to opposing viewpoints.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001130202947985336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-19251668962589116962018-09-14T13:19:11.286-07:002018-09-14T13:19:11.286-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001130202947985336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-28946030700600500582018-09-14T11:34:17.070-07:002018-09-14T11:34:17.070-07:00You don't insist that theists support their cl...<i>You don't insist that theists support their claims with evidence (proof)? Of course you do.</i><br />- When I'm engaged in a rational discussion with a rational person, and they make an assertion as part of their argument, I often point out that their argument isn't supported by the evidence. I don't "scream proof", as you put it.<br /><br /><i>And Coyne most certainly critized a book he didn't read by relying on the opinions of others</i><br />- You are wrong. Coyne was addressing an argument as he understood it, as expressed by a reviewer. He was not criticizing the book. He made that perfectly clear, and if you weren't so blind to truth, you could see it yourself.<br /><br /><i>I initially thought you were thoughtful enough to have an intelligent debate. This exchange has proved otherwise.</i><br />- What it proves to me is that my original statement that you objected to: <i>It seems that any criticism of Feser's views are met with a rigid unwillingness to listen.</i> is definitely true. You certainly haven't been willing to listen to what I say, have you?im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-60555542054446137132018-09-14T09:49:19.787-07:002018-09-14T09:49:19.787-07:00im-skeptical writes:
Who is screaming "proof...im-skeptical writes:<br /><br /><i>Who is screaming "proof" here? It isn't me.</i><br /><br />You don't insist that theists support their claims with evidence (proof)? Of course you do. You insist that without evidence, theistic arguments should be dismissed. I'm merely pointing out that you've made a claim that's been challenged. Instead of providing evidence of your claim (that you were mistreated), you refuse to provide it and say you don't care what I think. Well, isn't that the rational approach?<br /><br /><i>Feser accused Coyne of "criticizing what a book says when you haven’t actually read it". That isn't my own characterization. That's exactly what he said.</i><br /><br />And Coyne most certainly critized a book he didn't read by relying on the opinions of others. And Feser, as I pointed out, quoted Coyne, not the others Coyne cited, and attacked Coyne's opinions, not theirs. So, there is nothing misleading whatsoever about Feser's critique. You most certainly misread Feser because you stated that he asserted that Coyne was reviewing Hart's book. Feser did not say that (why does that have to be repeated?).<br /><br /><i>Evidence Of what? That he doesn't treat everybody the same way as I was treated?</i><br /><br />Evidence that I'm not a disciple of Feser! Are you paying attention at all to what I write? I stated that several times. If you're going to reply to what I post, please try to understand what you're replying to. I also show that presenting an opposing viewpoint on a fundamental tenet does not elicit rudeness from either Feser or the majority of that community. I'm also showing that I'm willing to back my claim with evidence, which is what you're steadfastly refusing to do.<br /><br />Anyway, I'm getting tired of this. As I stated, I initially thought you were thoughtful enough to have an intelligent debate. This exchange has proved otherwise. You don't pay attention to either Feser, Coyne or myself, and you're unwilling to provide evidence of your claim that you were rudely treated. Further dialog with you is pointless. Again, if you acted this way on Feser's site, you deserved the contempt you received.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001130202947985336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-64235349024357253162018-09-14T08:02:45.634-07:002018-09-14T08:02:45.634-07:00Not very pretty from somebody who constantly screa...<i>Not very pretty from somebody who constantly screams "proof" at theists.</i><br />- And I can see clearly that you are quite biased in your own assessments. Who is screaming "proof" here? It isn't me. It's you. And pleas feel free to back up YOUR assertions with evidence.<br /><br /><i>You've misread the links to Feser and Coyne and thus mischaracterized what was said.</i><br />- Well, that seems to be a matter of disagreement, doesn't it. Feser accused Coyne of "criticizing what a book says when you haven’t actually read it". That isn't my own characterization. That's exactly what he said. And it's misleading his readers, because Coyne was talking about a review of the book, having mad it clear that he didn't read the book himself. I didn't misread anything. But I think you did. You tell me that Coyne got "taken to the woodshed" and "spanked". This shows clearly that you are biased in favor of Feser, despite his lack of honesty and his raw contempt of people like Coyne.<br /><br /><i>I'll at least be charitable and provide the evidence that you're reluctant to give</i><br />- Evidence Of what? That he doesn't treat everybody the same way as I was treated? That some people get far more respect than Coyne does? That's exactly what I told you from the beginning. I never said that he didn't allow my comments. I said that I was treated poorly at his blog, which is true, and mostly by various commenters there, though not all. I said that Feser's own behavior toward me was disrespectful (including petty name-calling), and it wasn't because I came to his blog and treated the people there with disrespect. This is also true. I don't care if you don't believe me.<br /><br />And now you're questioning my intelligence because I don't agree with you about what a wonderful guy he is? How typical.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-43990979341112774542018-09-13T22:14:31.370-07:002018-09-13T22:14:31.370-07:00im-skeptical writes:
I don't care if you don&...im-skeptical writes:<br /><br /><i>I don't care if you don't believe what I said. It's all verifiable.</i><br /><br />And yet you do not verify anything. I've respectfully asked for corroboration, but all I get are steadfast refusals. Not very pretty from somebody who constantly screams "proof" at theists.<br /><br />You continue:<br /><br /><i>Obviously, you might not feel that way because he doesn't treat his own fans and disciples like that. But if you're interested in truth, then maybe you should open up your eyes and look - not from the perspective of one who buys everything he says, but from the outside.</i><br /><br />This is most regrettable. When I read your column and your subsequent comments, you seemed to be an intelligent sort with whom I could have a beneficial dialog. Well, that's been dispelled rather quickly. You've misread the links to Feser and Coyne and thus mischaracterized what was said. When called on it, you attack me as some sort of "disciple" or fanboy of Feser. I'm beginning to see why you were treated rudely on Feser's site (if, in fact, such were the case).<br /><br />However, I'll at least be charitable and provide the evidence that you're reluctant to give. I'm not a fanboy of Feser. In a recent <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2018/08/tugwell-on-st-albert-on-negative.html" rel="nofollow">column</a> on negative theology, Feser raised the topic of the Trinity. Of course, the doctrine of the Trinity is fundamental among most Christians and absolutely necessary for Catholics. I steadfastly reject that doctrine as unaffirmable because it is unintelligible in all its forms. I expressed that disagreement <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2018/08/tugwell-on-st-albert-on-negative.html?showComment=1533238082431#c9082412408502096385" rel="nofollow">HERE</a>. Feser now screens comments. He not only allowed my post through, he also allowed the tangential debate I had with one of the regulars. You would think that a challenge to something so fundamental would elicit the catcalls of the faithful, but I'm mostly treated with respect because I argue intelligently and in good faith.<br /><br />Again, I've seen intelligent atheists like dguller treated with utmost respect by Feser and the regulars on his site (with the exception of Ben Yachov and a very few others). Ben has even spit at me several times (I just ignore him). So please dispense with this fantasy of yours that I'm some sort of disciple.<br /><br />Let's just agree to disagree without your making things up to reinforce your biases.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001130202947985336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-48510192296209794392018-09-13T22:06:15.541-07:002018-09-13T22:06:15.541-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001130202947985336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-71625832909056809662018-09-13T22:00:53.123-07:002018-09-13T22:00:53.123-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001130202947985336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-66788301947332154622018-09-13T20:04:31.548-07:002018-09-13T20:04:31.548-07:00I don't care if you don't believe what I s...I don't care if you don't believe what I said. It's all verifiable. Feser's rudeness stems from his supremely arrogant attitude toward those who don't swallow his system of beliefs (which, by the way, has no basis in objective evidence). Obviously, you might not feel that way because he doesn't treat his own fans and disciples like that. But if you're interested in truth, then maybe you should open up your eyes and look - not from the perspective of one who buys everything he says, but from the outside. If most atheists were as arrogant as Feser, then I'd despise them, too. im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-76541259816095911672018-09-13T18:03:15.373-07:002018-09-13T18:03:15.373-07:00Ok, you don't like Feser's rebuttal, but t...Ok, you don't like Feser's rebuttal, but the fact that you don't like it does not mean Feser was dishonest in any manner. Coyne <i>was</i> criticizing Hart's book through other people, and Feser replied to <i>that</i> in unmistakable terms.<br /><br />You're trying to squeeze water out of a dry well for some odd reason. The principled thing for Coyne to have done is to simply read the book and then comment. Nonetheless, he offers his opinions, and Feser rightly challenged them.<br /><br />You've tried several angles of attack on Feser, and you've failed each time. You will not provide any link to an exchange between yourself and Feser, you obliquely accused Feser of falsely stating that Coyne reviewed Hart's book, and you tried to argue that Feser was somehow dishonest because Coyne was writing about the opinions of others. These allegations are weak, at best. If recognizing shoddy evidence compromises my objectivity, then so be it.<br /><br />I'll state again that if you can produce one exchange between you and Feser wherein he was rude or uncharitable toward you, I will gladly say so. As atheists are fond of saying, you don't get to make baseless allegations. If you don't have the evidence, quit making the claim.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001130202947985336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-11314958332384340262018-09-13T16:55:53.562-07:002018-09-13T16:55:53.562-07:00Yes, and the most salient point Feser made is that...Yes, and the most salient point Feser made is that Coyne hadn't read the book. Here are Feser's words: <i>Now, criticizing what a book says when you haven’t actually read it is no mean feat.</i> do you think Feser is being honest here, when Coyne has made it perfecly clear that he isn't responding to what is in the book? But it really doesn't matter what Coyne says. Feser's venom is based who he is rather than what he says. (And by the way, your own description of all this is a strong indicator of your level of objectivity.)im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-62943837688591264302018-09-13T13:51:17.395-07:002018-09-13T13:51:17.395-07:00And while you were checking Feser's accuracy, ...And while you were checking Feser's accuracy, did you notice that Feser replied to Coyne's words? Did you notice that the words Feser quoted were Coyne's opinions?<br /><br />Yes, Coyne got spanked, and deservedly so.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001130202947985336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-27880064740757648342018-09-13T12:59:31.760-07:002018-09-13T12:59:31.760-07:00While you were checking Feser's accuracy, did ...While you were checking Feser's accuracy, did you happen to notice that Coyne was actually commenting on what various people had said about the book? Not the contents of the book itself. Yet, if you follow Feser's lead, you'd come away thinking that Coyne was engaging in something that was worth being "taken to the woodshed" for. He wasn't.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-67840887279228366502018-09-13T09:32:37.580-07:002018-09-13T09:32:37.580-07:00You are, of course, the best arbiter of what you t...You are, of course, the best arbiter of what you think you "need" to hear, but whether you need it or not, Feser did no misleading whatsoever in the post I linked to. He always links to the piece he's commenting on so readers can check for themselves the accuracy of his statements. Moreover, he never said that Coyne "reviewed" Hart's book. He said Coyne was "commenting" on a book that Coyne admitted he didn't read. Nothing dishonest or misleading about that whatsoever.<br /><br />Look, I came across your site accidentally. I only commented because you made statements about Feser's blog. Your experience is vastly different from mine, so without accusing you of lying, I merely asked for an example of the kind of behavior you described. If you had provided one, I would have read it objectively and would have readily agreed with you if I felt his comments were "uncharitable." You either cannot or will not supply me with said evidence, so I have to suspend judgment in that regard.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001130202947985336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-383265879282952192018-09-13T07:54:01.369-07:002018-09-13T07:54:01.369-07:00That appears to be a typical Feser hit-piece, wher...That appears to be a typical Feser hit-piece, where he mis-characterizes what Coyne writes. It was not a review of Hart's book, and it made no pretense of being one. Yet Feser tries to make it sound like that, misleading his own readers into thinking that Coyne is being less than honest, when the truth is that Feser is being less than honest. <br /><br />I know for a fact that Feser has reviewed Coyne's book, and in the process, he not only misrepresents what the book says, but fails to understand at least parts of it, all the while showing not the slightest hint of charity in his interpretation of its arguments. So I don't need to hear any more of Feser cultists telling me how he has taken Coyne "to the woodshed". Feser is seriously lacking in humility.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-56612004835372868782018-09-12T22:06:31.325-07:002018-09-12T22:06:31.325-07:00@im-skeptical
Interestingly enough, and this was ...@im-skeptical<br /><br />Interestingly enough, and this was not at all intentional, the comments section in the link I provided contains extended dialog from a poster calling himself "dguller." He began posting on Feser's site back in 2011 and was an ardent atheist. Feser's arguments convinced him that he was wrong, and he has moved to a quasi form of theism. I used to "combat" dguller on Feser's site, so I know he wasn't bluffing. He was never mistreated by Feser (but he was grossly mistreated by Ben Yachov and others). Nonetheless, he interacted with intelligent posters and adopted many of Aquinas' arguments.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001130202947985336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-46252873371385344912018-09-12T21:30:02.948-07:002018-09-12T21:30:02.948-07:00You mean like this one wherein Feser has the temer...You mean like <a href="https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/01/jerry-built-atheism.html" rel="nofollow">this one</a> wherein Feser has the temerity to lambaste Coyne for criticizing a book he didn't read? Yes, the bashing was justified.<br /><br />Feser has typed several posts mentioning Coyne. Most of his criticisms are, you guessed it, directed at Coyne's inability to even understand what he is criticizing. But in the linked analysis, Feser does far more than offer snark. He takes Coyne to the woodshed for his irresponsible review.<br /><br />In any event, you apparently can't provide evidence from Feser's site of rank rudeness from him, and your handle fails to show up in any search.<br /><br />With respect to <i>The Last Superstition</i>, if you read it you'll know he provides plenty of examples from the "gnus" that deserve the spanking he gives them. If you're not one of them, you have no cause to take it personally. I would think you'd be just as disgusted with ignorant, irresponsible critiques from your side as I am with mine.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001130202947985336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-6594069627618327502018-09-12T15:29:35.996-07:002018-09-12T15:29:35.996-07:00I have never used any other handle.
As for Feser&...I have never used any other handle.<br /><br />As for Feser's "gnu-bashing", I think Jerry Coyne is one of his favorite whipping-boys. And yet, if you have ever listened to Coyne, you would know that he never resorts to the kind of personal attacks that Feser does. A taste of his own medicine? That's pure bullshit.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-42727015133827096752018-09-12T08:39:30.011-07:002018-09-12T08:39:30.011-07:00@im-skeptical:
Oh, I can find all kinds of exampl...@im-skeptical:<br /><br />Oh, I can find all kinds of examples of poor behavior on most blogs. I don't deny that. But there are also all kinds of very good posters who are willing to engage skeptics intelligently, including Feser. I am only saying that in all the years I've been there, the only times he's gotten testy or snarky are when trolls misrepresent him.<br /><br />You can also find "gnu-bashing" in his book, <i>The Last Superstition</i>, but even there he explains that he is merely giving some atheists a taste of their own medicine.<br /><br />You don't have to track down your comments on Feser's site. All you have to do is give me the handle you used while commenting there, and I can look it up myself. I tried "im-skeptical," but that yielded zero returns.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001130202947985336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-48869121922811041582018-09-11T09:20:59.265-07:002018-09-11T09:20:59.265-07:00Bill,
With all due respect, I think if you want t...Bill,<br /><br />With all due respect, I think if you want to find examples of poor behavior at Feser's blog, you shouldn't have too much trouble finding them. Feser himself is notorious for his "gnu"-bashing, where he uses ad hominem and name-calling, and his followers do the same. He did the same with me. I'm sorry, but I don't keep records of all my activity on the internet. I don't recall when I first went there. But I do recall that as soon as I showed up, there were certain individuals who poisoned the well by making negative personal comments about me, and this was before any dialog had a chance to begin. It was followed by a torrent of negativity. So if your experience there has been different, that's great. But I'm not lying about my own.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.com