November, 2007, Archives

More on my annoyance with the Blogroll

Sunday, 25th November, 2007

I was going to write this as a comment on the aside I made last night, however it seems to be a bit long winded for that (not to mention, the aside was supposed to be a bit of a quick rant! :-) ).

The previous post, resulted in several good comments from salient, heather and Mana which are well worth reading. Following their responses, I felt there were a couple of points I wanted to clarify - mainly to make my position on the matter clear, rather than actually disagreeing with anything they have said.

First off, my rant which started this was more the result of frustration than anything else. The blogroll is excellent and it has allowed both Heather and myself to discover some excellent, well written and entertaining blogs we would have otherwise missed. When this blog first joined it, we got two excellent advantages from membership:

  1. Every time some one on the blogroll made a post, Technorati granted a “link” (authority) to our blog if we were visible on their blogroll widget. It was this which propelled us from almost no technorati “authority” to dizzying heights (albeit short lived).
  2. Every time we made new posts, the **New next to our name drove traffic to our site. This resulted in lots of new traffic for the site, new readers, new commenters and new posts agreeing / disagreeing with our own.

Over time, Technorati removed the first advantage and now it seems Blogrolling are in the process of removing the second advantage. Over the last few days, the blogroll widget we display in the sidebar has done nothing but direct traffic away from our blog to other blogs (according to Feedburner outgoing links stats) - as we have not shown up on anyone else’s pages we have had no inbound traffic.

In reality, for the last three days now the blogroll has really been nothing but a free linking service to other atheist blogs. While I don’t really have a problem with that, it is a touch annoying that there is no reciprocation and, more importantly, we have no say (here at WhyDontYou) over which atheist blogs get linked to. As it stands, we would be better off replacing the blogrolling blogroll with a static blogroll where we chose which blogs were listed (note: at the moment, we have both).

While I am not, at the moment, thinking of removing the blogroll from here (and I wouldn’t advocate others remove it either - it is a good thing!), I do hope that someone with the requisite technical knowledge can come up with a solution to the problems. There must be a sufficiently IT literate atheist out there (or are they all on the sites which seem to always be on the blogroll!)

As further clarification, in my previous aside I was being very subjective when I complained that the good blogs seem to be missed out by the blogroll. I was, in an angry and frustrated manner, trying to complain that (often) if you visit all 25 blogs from the blogroll which should have “new” posts (i.e. are marked **New), you often find little more than a YouTube clip with no commentary or even no new posts. Yes, there are some brilliant blogs on the blogroll which I make the effort to visit as often as I remember, but there are a few that are barely readable.

In a nutshell (sorry for being longwinded about this!), the biggest thing which annoys me is the erratic nature of it all. For example, Pharyngula (an excellent blog) seems to be permanently on the blogroll (*) - which is understandable as he makes ten posts for every one a mere mortal can generate. However, WhyDontYou hasn’t been seen on it for the last three days, despite us having half a dozen new posts. I am sure there is no specific discrimination against this particular blog, I just wish I could work out how to solve it…

As a related aside, salient has an excellent post where he has looked at technorati stats for various words. Well worth checking out, and it seems to identify a global, significant, drop in blog traffic over the period 11 - 17 Nov. This is mirrors in the stats for visitors here, they plummeted around this period. Did the internet break for a few days?

(*) Comically, I have just looked and for the first time in ages, Pharyngula isn’t on the blogroll. Bah. Toutatis and Loki have conspired together to make me look silly. Hopefully he will be back before you read this… :-)

Popularity: 16% [?]

BBC’s Sunday morning religious broadcasting programme The Big Questions today discussed whether blasphemy law should be repealed and whether fundamentalist religious indoctrination of children was child abuse.

On the panel are Ann Widdecombe MP; Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury; Professor Richard Dawkins, the scientist and atheist; and Jonathan Bartley, the Director of Ekklesia, the religious think-tank. The special guest is the actor and singer, John Barrowman.

Members of the public apply for the rest of the slots. I doubt that the competition is intense. :-)There’s a number to call and a form on the BBC page, if you ever want to attend one of these.

Lord Carey supported Dawkins’ argument that blasphemy law should be repealed.

Dawkins pointed out that no one says “This is a post-modernist child ” although they will identify a Catholic child or a Baptist child. Naturally, the Archbishop disagreed on faith schools equalling indoctrination. He said baptism identified a person’s adherence to Christianity, rather than to any sect (which is surely missing the point) He even got slightly panicked, as he sought to distinguish UK religious schools from the behaviour shown in a film clip about US Faith camps, without saying anything to offend any fundamentalists in the lunatic wing of the Anglican church.

Generally, there was interesting and well-argued debate. Dawkins (wearing a fetching red A lapel badge) made excellent points throughout and was treated with respect by the celeb and non-celeb panel members and the presenter.

Astonishingly, a psychologist (who defined herself as culturally Jewish but religiously atheist) reported that a section of her degree students actually insisted that dinosaurs walked with humans and so on. She pointed out that, despite being in the final year of a science degree course, they had no understanding of science. Everyone - Christians, Muslims and atheists alike - expressed horror at the currency of anti-evolution beliefs. In fact, creationism was pretty well identified as child-abuse by at least one speaker.

The only reliably nutty person in the panel was former Conservative politician Anne Widdecombe, (wearing a less fetching cross on a necklace chain and a fish brooch.) She gets dragged into almost any televised discussion of religion, being so bizarrely un-mainstream as to be compelling.

I wasn’t taking notes - I didn’t know this would be on the test…. Someone might Youtube it.

Popularity: 12% [?]

Meme and morality

Sunday, 25th November, 2007

Thanks to Enonomi for the “earliest memory” meme tag. T_W has made so many posts today, it seemed churlish to make him do this one. (Though that was before I saw that he had insulted my typo-fuelled grammar.:-p) All the ame, I admit I’ve been dodging the responsibility - following the pattern of a lifetime.

This is mainly because my earliest memories are really boring. I was a baby, ffs. There’s only so much you can say about it. It’s a bit like telling people about some great dream you had. You had to be there…

I played in our apartment. I played in the garden and the park. My dad took me riding on the cross-bar of his bike, sometimes to feed sugar cubes to a terrifyingly huge and friendly horse. I can remember the environment in great detail but I can’t remember anyone’s faces. (I was a self-absorbed child)

I got a sister the day after my second birthday. I was pleased, assuming this was like a birthday present, a new doll that did stuff. Disappointingly, the stuff turned out to be crying and sleeping. I got used to ignoring her.

A professional photographer came, when my sister was a few months old. She cried nonstop and tried to crawl under the table. The photographer was sent away. I was ready to kill her. I wanted my picture taken and it seemed unjust to me that her wailing could stop me getting photographed. Even worse, they had made me wear a hideous cardigan that my grandmother had knitted. It seemed doubly unjust that, even though I’d made the massive sacrifice of agreeing to wear the ugly cardigan, I still wasn’t getting photographed. (I was a very vain child.)

A few months after my sister was born, we moved to a house. Joy! The phone was in a spare room, away from adult attention. I spent most of my unobserved time on it, cold-calling random numbers, chatting (expensively) for hours with anyone who answered. Until one woman demanded to speak to my mother and I was banned from the room with the phone.

I was three years and 3 months old. My mother was 7 months pregnant. She was moving a piano and it fell on her. (Aside. A baby grand piano, ffs? Where did it come from? Nobody played it. My mother sometimes claimed she could but she never tried to. Although, a year or so later, she did involve it when she practised kicking her own height -with me standing on the piano stool, holding my hand out at to mark her height and protesting constantly at the embarrassing stupidity of the enterprise. Until she accidentally kicked me in the head. I was knocked to the floor. saw stars. After which, I refused to play any more part in this demented practice.)

Trapped under the piano and forced into labour by its weight, my mother sent me to the phone to call the emergency ambulance. Somehow, I managed it. I can remember being furious at the injustice. “They won’t let me use the phone when I want to, but they expect me to use the phone whenever it suits them!” (As I said, I was a self-absorbed child.)

My father was stuck with two babies for a few weeks, while my mother and newly-emerged brother were in hospital. Every day, my dad felt obliged to come up with some new amusement. He took us to the circus (I loved every second, except for the frighteningly unfunny clowns), to the theatre, to the mountains, to the beach. (It was December.) It was great. Bah, my mother and brother finally came home and everyday life became dull and circus-free again.

My parents arranged for another photographer to take a picture of all 3 kids. But I was really annoyed by the stupid hairstyle I had and there was no way I was willingly getting my picture taken with it. It was worse than the cardigan because it was part of ME. (No one listened to my explanations of why this hairstyle was unacceptable.) I sat in the garden with a pair of scissors and cut the fringe that I wanted. I still remember the random screaming when I was spotted…. Plus my own fury at the injustice of my parents thinking that there could be anything dangerous in me cutting away hair that fell across my eyes. (The unfairness! As if I don’t know what I am doing! They treat me like a baby!)

They were being so irrational. Hair dragged back straight back from the forehead was patently ugly. No one would acknowledge this, despite my best efforts to educate them. I wanted a fringe. Scissors cut hair. Ergo, I had to cut my own hair. That should have been self-evident. If only adults weren’t so irrational….

Even worse, my mother dragged me to a hairdresser’s to get the fringe cut straight. So, although she had had to give way on the fringe, as a result of my direct action, I ended up with a stupid fringe that didn’t fit the image I was aiming for at all. It was actually even worse than having no fringe. It was way too short! It was cut comically straight across. What a stupid thing to do. Were they mad? Were they deliberately making a laughing stock of me? I kicked off so vehemently that the photography session got postponed another couple of years. (Not just vain but self-willed.)

I played complex games with neighbourhood kids - all usually involving homemade and ineffective bows and arrows and twig swords, with a lot of sycamore tree climbing and/or hiding in bushes. Princesses and outlaws and swineherds and pirates and fairies and witches were all involved. I collected bits of wild plants, sometimes looking for ways to synthesise wierd poisons to hide inside apples, sometimes trying to prove the existence of four-leaf clovers and sometimes trying to work out how you could make perfume from flowers. I was always grazing my knees. I got several infected cuts and insect bites, which ended up in frequent visits to the emergency room.

I’ve posted this stuff, despite it being pretty boring to anyone except me, because (a) these really are my earliest memories (up to about four years old) and I somehow feel I should respond honestly to the meme if I agreed to do it and (b) because I think it disputes a lot of (even my) assumptions about toddlers.

There was a fair bit of stuff in the newspapers about research that showed that 6 month olds could tell “nice” and “nasty” apart. Set aside the fact that it doesn’t really show that anyway. It’s been variously puffed as “proof” either that morality is genetically innate or that it comes direct from God.

Research led by Kiley Hamlin, a graduate student at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, shows that babies less than a year old can judge the niceness or nastiness of others, even when watching events that don’t directly affect them. The researchers made the discovery using nothing more high-tech than a simple puppet show.
After watching the show, the babies, aged either six months or ten months, instinctively preferred ‘nice’ characters over less helpful ones. This kind of skill may be useful in helping them learn the right values as their social awareness develops later in childhood.(from the report in Nature)

The problem with most of the pop science conclusions from this stuff is that it it often assumes that babies are blank slates. However, by the time a baby is old enough to look at activities and communicate any preference, it’s been studying us intensively for months. It’s learned pretty much how to live in our world. It’s already learned lots of things about us that we don’t acknowledge to ourselves. So, how can anyone draw conclusions about innateness from the responses of socialised beings?

In any case, just because babies prefer people they think won’t harm them, how can you conclude that they will later decide to follow the behaviour of the “nice” ones? As presented in nature, this seems a one-dimensional view of how we develop a moral sense.

Maybe morality is encoded in some part of the human genome. There is some interesting research on this, discussed in New Scientist in August.

It seems we are born with a sense of right and wrong, and that no amount of religious indoctrination will change our most basic moral instincts.(from New Scientist)

The research recently reported in Nature can contribute to this but it doesn’t bear the interpretative weight being heaped upon it.

Looking at my own earliest memories, I can see that they come from a time that I could speak, even though they are mostly non-verbal and triggered by how I felt. I would assume that the developed characteristics of a toddler who can speak probably aren’t much different from a baby who can’t. I can’t imagine any way of testing this idea.

These anecdotes express a “me” that I can recognise as an individual. I would even admit that they express aspects of me that remain pretty well unchanged, for good and ill: rage at perceived injustice, excessive concern with aesthetics - especially the aesthetics of how I appear, the capacity to interpret events mainly in terms of how they affect me, love of stories, even the obsession with using reason to reach conclusions combined with a total failure to understand why everybody else doesn’t always see things the same way.

If a baby sees someone doing something unpleasant, they avoid that person. That makes sense, as the person whom they saw might turn that nastiness on them. This response seems to come from a sense of self-preservation - an evolutionary imperative -rather than being a result of babies making “moral judgements”. (Although, granted, babies’ capacity to scream until their parents want to cut their heads off to stop their mouths making noise contradicts the self-preservation bit.)

Who to tag? This is one of those memes where people might prefer not to get tagged but might feel it’s bad blogtiquette to refuse. At the same time, other bloggers might have really good things to say and might feel slighted at not getting any tags. Apart from these considerations, I am too lazy to pick a few names and check they haven’t already been tagged or actually done it. I prefer to read any blogs that I might tag for pleasure rather than research purposes.

So, I’m going to do what the Exterminator did. He said:

If you haven’t been tagged already, and want to be, either consider yourself so, or send me an email and I’ll make the tag formal for the Atheosphere record books.(from nomorehornets blog)

Plagiarising good ideas is probably the way to go, so I’m just lifting this bit. Replace email with comment and apply it here.

I think I’ll be a bit more specific, as well, though. If you have some interesting first memory, definitely consider yourself tagged. I’ll put a link to any interesting responses I came across (I’ve already mentioned the Exterminator and enonomi. Their posts are good reads.) And if I think of any specific blogs I really want to tag with this and they haven’t already done it, I might add them to this post..

Popularity: 10% [?]

Annoying Blogroll

Saturday, 24th November, 2007

Despite wordpress automatically pinging and us manually pinging Blogrolling.com as well as using Ping-O-Matic at 15 - 30 minute intervals, not one of the previous five posts have been shown on the Atheist Blogroll. Now, the blogroll is a wonderful thing and we here at WhyDontYou want to fully support it, but the fact remains it is not working properly. As it stands, blogs no longer get Technorati ranking from it which means its main purpose is to send traffic to a site. Most people use the abbreviated version showing the most recently updated blogs. As it now seems to ignore the good blogs when they update, oddly showing a **new next to all the content-free/YouTube blogs, it is becoming less and less useful. If I had the technical know-how to propose a solution, I would, but surely there must be, somewhere in AtheistLand, a person with the required knowledge to solve the problem? Anyone?

Popularity: 10% [?]

Creationists Say the Stupidest Things

Saturday, 24th November, 2007

Hot on the footsteps of my previous post, I have carried on looking over the latest rantings posted on FSTDT. This led me to a wonderful link to a Hovind movie on DivX.com’s Stage6. I’ve linked to it here, so you can watch the video if you want - personally I have seen enough of his cretinous nonsense to not bother.

On the FSTDT, they have taken someone called “MovieSelect” to task over part of a comment. Namely this bit of idiocy:

Why do christians like myself say evolution is a religion? This is easy at first science was thought as observing about the present so they became facts and no one could say its not true. Now people realize they didn’t only observe the present but predict the past so people find out its a religion because scientists predict the past or the future so it makes it into a theory and theory is a religion i don’t care what anybody says about that and dead bones is not evidence because they can lose form over time.

While it is funny and reasonably fundie nonsense, it was the fifth point in a stream of nonsense made by the same madman. MovieSelect opens with this headspinning reasoning:

Very informative thank you a lot to think about.
Why it proves evolution wrong is-

1. Some cells that form the baby’s hands commit suicide. In evolution theory is that cells/organisms only want to try to stay alive why then do they kill them selves? it is because the cells follow orders so then look at it this way the solider follow orders even to commit suicide for the sake of the commanders plans. So the cells follow the creators plans.

No, seriously. That is what he has written. It gives me a headache thinking about it. This is blatantly a person who has no idea what “cells” are. I suspect someone has tried to use analogy to teach him about the bodies process and he has become confused. Very confused. More importantly, it speaks of a deep misunderstanding about evolution - as is often the case with creationists. Almost a shame. Still, the strangeness continues:

2. How does the cells/organisms think for themselves if they don’t have a brain? The evolutionist theory would be they naturally follow natures law, but were did the law come from? If you create something you set rules to it that means theres a creator because before it was created there aren’t any rules because it doesn’t exist. So lets pretend evolution is right then we would not exist because theres no creator in evolution, so why do they claim there is a law?

(Why are creationists so grammatically bad? Is heather a creationist, I wonder :-)  )

This is a stream of madness if ever I saw one. First off he ask a question which has a simple answer “they dont.” However, he wants it to have a different answer, which he then goes off and critiques. It is like an uber-Strawman. From that dodgy beginning, things go really downhill.  Please let this be a parody.

Genuine madness kicks in now:

3. Is there a random chance of our existence? I say no because how can you answer this problem with out an answerer 123,473,957,430,965,743,196,749,574,590,487,595,826 + 539,476,056,790,734,635,680,953,530,579,057,035,987=? the problem doesn’t answer itself.

No, really. This is what he wrote. I couldn’t make this lunacy up. How can you answer anything without an answer? As for the basic addition problem he posted, well it is long, but it is an easy sum to add…. What sheer madness. I cant help but chuckle at how long he must have spent typing that out - you cant just mash the keys when you want to include a comma every 3 digits…

Lastly, we get:

4. Many evolutionist claim to say the world is billion years old because evolution takes a long time for it to happen so why does the baby starts from a cell to a human being in 5 months? Why is it impossible for evolution in the outside world evolve the same speed as in the mothers wound? I will tell you why because evolution is mostly incorrect with there so called factual evidence and there not facts there guesses. Of course they do have ways to sample material underground to state there age but I cant say if there right or wrong because I don’t know exactly how they sample them I do know that they compare present elements decays and relate them to old ones and state how long its been decaying but I think things decay alought faster underground then above the ground so you cant really rely on it. There must be a creator.

Babble, babble, babble. The first sentence is funny - either the crazy fool thinks evolution exists (and for some reason thinks that the development of a cell to human being is an example of it) or they don’t. Why does it take 10 hours for me to fly to the USA, when it only takes me 3 minutes to microwave a bag of popcorn would be a similar argument.

With this fourth comment, MovieSelect must have been getting really carried away. His spelling has deteriorated even more than normal, so I suspect he was typing really fast now - maybe he thought this was a crushing blow against evolution. Sadly it is just disconnected nonsense.  He finishes with an isolated cry of “there must be a creator” as if everything else he has written leads to that conclusion. Sadly…

Posts like this really do make me wonder about the mental health of a huge swathe of the world. Worryingly, when you sit there and look around, and everyone else seems to be mad maybe it means you are the mad one…

Popularity: 10% [?]

A Sad and Empty Place

Saturday, 24th November, 2007

Hot on the heels of the bizarre weirdness that it Kent Hovind’s “Knee-mails” to the mythical, I found a website which appears to try and parody the always entertaining Fundies Say the Darndest Things site (FSTDT). This site with the oh so funny title “Atheists Say the Weirdest Crap (ASTWC)” (very droll) is entertaining on many levels - although not, I suspect, in the manner its creator intended.

For those who haven’t visited FSTDT, have a look. It is a hilarious insight into the twisted things which rattle around inside the heads of fundamentalist theists (not just fundies either it includes a generous helping of racists and other idiots). There are hundreds of pages, each full with idiotic outpourings written by people who often have little or no understanding of the holy book they are claiming is the TRUTH.

Pitched against that, we now have the ASTWC. This has the sum total of six (count ‘em) quotes. Four of them come from Richard Dawkins. There appears to be a forum with some posts (and a section titled: “Politics No liberals allowed”) but every time I try to view them, my connection times out. Obviously the internet has some level of taste after all. Because ASTWC is so, frankly, small, I am more than willing to fisk the whole “quotes” page. What is really funny is not the atheistic quotes he tries to ridicule, but how the site owner tries to ridicule them. It will have you laughing for minutes.

In the hate section, titled “The obvious silliness from Richard Dawkins” we get:

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” [It actually teaches us the opposite of that, as anyone with working synapses can explain]

Blimey. Pure, 100% school ground retort. No evidence or proof of his claims, so he resorts to an assertion and an ad hominem. Brilliant way of supporting an argument. If you are under 10 years old.

“What has ‘theology’ ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has ‘theology’ ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? What makes you think that ‘theology’ is a subject at all?” [The Word of God, the story of the crucifixion, and the fact that it is.]

Straight from the department of not understanding the quote you are arguing against. The “Word of God” is meaningless and could easily be argued as already falsified by biblical inconsistencies, transcription errors and the need for human interpretation. The story of the crucifixion falls squarely in the not of the smallest use to anybody and “the fact that it is” is childish nonsense. I am now reasonably sure that ASTWC is written by a 9 year old.

“Personally, I rather look forward to a computer program winning the world chess championship. Humanity needs a lesson in humility.” [Included for the sheer hypocrisy.]

Pointless. What is hypocritical about it?

“I’m not sure this conversation can go any further.” [Rallying cry of the defeated atheist.]

A return to the school playground. Theists use this just as much. Anyway, that is pretty much the limit of the “weird crap” he (or she, but I think he) can accuse Dawkins of saying. Interesting considering how much Dawkins has said, but we now move on to the attack on FSTDT. This produces the longest bit of continual writing on the site:

FSTDT is one of the most truly disturbing websites I have ever seen on the internet. Please don’t visit unless you want to be mocked, ridiculed, and persecuted just because you are a moral person with faith.

“Guess we’re more popular than jesus” - malicious_bloke [Guess you don't remember what happened to the last guy that said that. Or that Jesus is capitalized. I imagine there is a great deal that you don't remember, or else never knew in the first place.]

I suspect that the ASTWC author really doesn’t get FSTDT. I am a bit confused here though. What did happen to the last guy who said he was more popular than Jesus? I know loads of people who have said it in the last (say) six years and I can’t think of anything particularly bad which happened to any of them. What is he talking about here? As for the capitalisation bite, well that is just lame. We could allow this to descend into a long argument about internet vs Internet, but that would be equally lame. Suffice it to say, if his strongest argument is the lack of a J at the start of Jeebus’ name he has no argument at all.

Finally, the ASTWC idiocy ends with this priceless gem:

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Steven Roberts [Nice cop-out, there Steve. Unfortunately, comparing the God of Abraham to, say, Shiva, is comparing apples to false gods. So you're not excused.]

Wow. I am going to chortle about this all day. I was going to write a bit more about this, but I have just discovered that FSTDT has already picked up on this line of nonsense, so I will leave it to them to pull this to shreds. The idiocy in the statement is amazing - sadly it also speaks of someone who will never actually understand why they are an idiot.

Popularity: 9% [?]

Painfully Weird

Saturday, 24th November, 2007

Mooching around the internet today allowed me to stumble upon a site I’ve visited in the past but largely had forgotten about - despite the fact it reaches a new level of bizarreness. The site is CSE Blogs, for those of you who (like me) wondered what CSE stood for, it isn’t “Combined Services Entertainment” or even the “Centre for Sustainable Energy.” No, it stands for the complete headcase Creation Science Evangelism promoted by “dr” Tax-Dodger Hovind. Surely some one can sue the creation “science” nuts over the use of CSE?

Anyway, as I said, this is a painfully weird site. The posts seem to be made by a lackey of Hovind called “pabramson” (which seems to be missing a “h” in my mind but …) and are largely examples of weird imagined conversations between Hovind and various mythical figures. When I say weird, I don’t mean in the nice, funny sort of way. While the larger part of me assumes that Hovind and his lackeys all know it is a load of crap, there is a little bit which is screaming that the gullible rubes visiting the site and leaving gushing comments (example follows) actually believe the nonsense. Now that is scary.

Thank you Brother Kent, and Brother Paul, Brother Eric, and everyone else at CSE. I needed this today! I have my own ministry and I speak about Creation, evolution, and share the salvation plan with everyone who will listen, and I have never been backed down or proven wrong. (from Micheal Deas)

Great isn’t it. I suspect the reason he has never “been backed down or proven wrong” is mostly down to the fact he preaches to other idiots.

The main thing I find weird about this site, is the sheer volume of Knee-Mail posts. First off, the play on words is one which would embarrass a mildly educated ten year old after a while (which could explain why these lunatics nice people are still getting kicks from it) but each and every one seems to think it is a brand new and funny way to open a “sermon.” That, in effect, is all the posts are - a sad attempt by a criminal to try and preach to the public over the internet in the style of some one in an electronic conversation with a mythical figure.

Take the latest one, the one I came across first, which presents itself as a conversation between “Kent and the Captain.” This is how it begins (note the attempt to recreate an e-mail header at the start, how funny…)

From: Kent Hovind
Sent: August 17, 2007
To: Captain of Ship to Italy with Passenger, the Apostle Paul
Subject: Re: Discussions on the Wisdom of Sailing Against the Advice of the Prisoner Paul and the “Preserved Word” from which He Preaches
(Read Acts 27:6-44)

KH: Hey Captain! I hate to bother you at this busy time, but can you talk for a minute (between verses 11 and 12)?

Captain: Sure, knee-mail suspends time; so it won’t effect me at all.

KH: I understand that you own the ship that is headed to Italy.

Like I said, it is weird but I will try to identify all the things which I think are odd - please feel free to correct me if you think I am missing the point…

First off, it was posted on 19 Nov 07. Why does the faux-header say 17 August? Is that when Kent sent the message out of prison? Does “knee-mail” suspend time but take three months to get anywhere? More importantly, why is the Captain of the ship carrying the supposed Apostle Paul getting a message in 2007? Are creationists unable to maintain a coherent line of fantasy? (Oh, yeah, scratch that one…)

I am bit thrown by the reference to “between verses 11 and 12,” when Kent then goes on to make references to verses after Acts 27:12. Having said that, Acts is a bit of a mixmash anyway - trying to read the verses in chronological (or any logical) order is like hammering a nail into granite with your forehead. For example look at the flow between Acts 27:34 - 38: (this is after they had apparently been starving for 14 days)

34: Wherefore I pray you to take some meat: for this is for your health: for there shall not an hair fall from the head of any of you.
35: And when he had thus spoken, he took bread, and gave thanks to God in presence of them all: and when he had broken it, he began to eat.
36: Then were they all of good cheer, and they also took some meat.
37: And we were in all in the ship two hundred threescore and sixteen souls.
38: And when they had eaten enough, they lightened the ship, and cast out the wheat into the sea. (source Biblos.com, KJ version)

That is one of the more readable sections, yet it still manages to insert a seemingly out of place head count and have some drivel about baldness. (Also, as they are starving, not having eaten for 14 days Acts 27:33, why did they throw their wheat into the sea - in fact, as they obviously had bread, meat and wheat, why had they starved themselves for 14 days!)

From this bit of biblical madness it becomes a touch easier to see where Hovind gets his writing style from. The thing I can’t understand is why is he being allowed to carry on doing this? Surely there are some regulations on what inmates can and can’t do with regards to contact with the outside world?

Great irony can be found in the comments, especially where Paul Abramson is talking about people writing to Kent in jail (to lift his spirits etc) and he writes:

Do not put “Dr.” on his name, or it may get thrown away by the guards, unfortunately.

Oh, how that made me giggle.

Less funny, although giving a better insight into the minds of the creationist, is the reaction to Dermot’s comment. Basically Dermot writes creationism is not scientific, so Paul Abramson cuts him off (yet doesn’t delete the post, just slices it) to say they are not going to talk about creationism, then talks about creationism. Weird but true.

I like this bit in particular:

For a *believer* then creation is non-negotiable. Either the Bible is true (including Exodus 20:11) or it is not true. Either God is strong or weak. One cannot have both. That is what makes this non-negotiable - for believers.

The God of the Bible is strong. The god of evolution is weak and bumbling or is non-existent. It is incoherent to try to mix evolution with Christianity, I would contend.

Great, isn’t it. Just like six year olds in a play ground arguing whose father is the toughest. I am starting to get an idea of the mental age of these creationists…

Edit to add: Seriously, if this was anyone else, or if it wasn’t supposed to be a hommage to the great sky pixie, people would have put Kent in a padded cell and be force feeding him all manner of chemicals. The man is either a callous con artist or criminally insane. You chose which. 

Popularity: 10% [?]

Junior High

Saturday, 24th November, 2007

Hat tip to Gullibity blog for a link to a site that tests the reading age that your blog is aimed at.

So…when I did this blog readability test I was surprised at it’s assessment of the reading level needed to make sense of what I was writing. The widget says you are at Genius level if you read Gullibility - WOW!. Just a note, I would have posted the icon but it comes with an un-announced advertising link. The other thing that comes to mind is whether that means the Gullibility readership are Genii or Geniuses…but what the heck, being a Genius you’ll know anyway! (quoted from Gullibility blog)

Well, I got slightly on the self-critical defensive on reading this. I want to write clearly. I think I change my wordy blogdrivel into plain English, on the second pass, but I have to admit that a fair amount of the blog evidence contradicts the success of this venture.

But, I can take it. I’ll run the blog through the reading age thing and learn from it.

Junior High level?

Well that sounds good in terms of the readability objective, but this puts me slightly on a new para about maybe having very banal content.

(Not a hundred per cent sure what this means really, which is a bit of an obstacle. How old are students in Junior High? In any case, hang your dumb heads in shame, readers.)

So, how is it that Gullibility blog can only be read by geniuses? I scan this very interesting site, looking for posts from Schroedinger or, at least, casually inserted calculus problems that are way beyond my puny mortal understanding. No, can’t see any.

Oh, wait. I see a thoughtful post on the Popper/Kuhn debate. Mention of “paradigms”. A link to a Princeton page of sociology fun? (Admittedly, you really do need to know a fair bit about academic sociology to find any of the Princeton jokes funny or even to understand the references. But I like the concept of sociological humour, in principle.)

w00t \0/. It’s official. It comes from the Internet, which is not allowed to lie.

Sociology=genius.

I can’t argue with that. In your faces, other scientists.

(Bah. This may make me seem a mite Gullible….)

Popularity: 9% [?]

7 worst blog scraper tricks

Friday, 23rd November, 2007

Hah, I lied. I was using one of the top x ways to get people to look at a post.

(There must be lots of people who think - “Ah, 5 secrets of reaching new customers? That’s an interesting number. Not too many for my poor little brain to take in. But big enough to have some meaningful content. And, secrets? Oooh, I love secrets! I love them so much that I will suspend the inner voice that is screaming out that, by definition, it can’t be a SECRET if it’s on the Internet.” Well, SEO experts seem to assume there are lots of these people. :-D)

In fact, there’s only one evil trick that I’m going to bitch about here.

Blog comment spam goes with the blog commenting territory. Akismet is pretty good at stopping most of it, at a cost of losing a few real comments. Otherwise, if we are too stupid to see the difference between a real person and an advert for some spurious Internet products embedded with links to online pharmaceutical sales, we don’t deserve to stop them. Maybe its some sort of Turing test game spammers are playing, examining our capacity to tell whether we are interacting with a human or machine .

Standard comment spam now half-heartedly tries to convince you it’s from a human by saying things like “I loved reading about Whydontyoublog though I can’t say I understand all of it” (I stupidly deleted a good few of these, just before I decided to write this, so no direct quotes. My bad.) Obviously, if you hadn’t seen the same words in a few dozen spams, and if the “insert blog name here” bit made sense - unlike in our examples - you might let this through.

Other ones are from scrapers. I really don’t care if scrapers take our text and present it in sometimes comically inappropriate situations.

The ones for “jokes” scrapers used to be entertaining in themselves. The blog would have a righteous rant about something and say something like “They must be joking” talking about Uncommon Descent or some such unfunny creationist nonsense. A Jokes scraper would spot the “joking” keyword and put the post on its Jokes sites. If there was anyone reading them who expected a punchline to these posts, they must still be waiting.

Indeed, we would sometimes deliberately used the J word just to see how unfunny an atheist rant had to be to avoid getting scraped. We never found a limit. The jokes scrapers just seem to have withered away.

However, these scrapers couldn’t do us any discernible harm. A few sites with no real content seemed just a waste of somebody else’s Internet bandwidth.

But their next-gen offspring really annoy me. These do the same thing but with a subtle difference. They attribute the post they’ve taken and stuck on their blog to somebody else. These sites say things like “romanianbride wrote an interesting post today” and follow it with a post from my/your blog.

You blink in disbelief a few times. You think “Wow, what an amazing coincidence, romanianbride also had an argument about atheism with her son Xavier’s teacher today and met her fundy neighbour Mr Roberts in the supermarket and had to have her cat CuddlySnowballIII dewormed. And she’s written about it in the exact same words as I did!” (Well, assuming that’s your blog content…)

I started out thinking this doesn’t matter, given that it’s not as if we want our noms de blog used anyway and that it’s unlikely that anyone would visit these scrapers except by mistake.

But it does matter a bit. It matters in terms of Google rank for a start. One of the things search engine spiders look for is “uniqueness of content.” If your blog has the same content as half a dozen scrapers - at least some of which will be phishing traps and/or pathways to online sales of probably fake pharmaceuticals, casinos or pr0n - how are the search engine spiders and spam detecting algorithms supposed to know that your site is legit? Your blog starts to look like just another scraper site. In fact, it doesn’t matter if Akismet bins the spam that announces this to you. It’s already damaged your reputation. Giving them the spurious “authority” of a link from your comments, if you use “follow”, is not going to hurt you any more.

Looking for some subtle way to strike back, I first thought of posting the IPs of every one of them here. Bah, way too naive a solution. I followed up some of these IPs using a map lookup IP program. They were pretty clearly spoofed or wireless drive-by linkages. Unless, that is, there really are people, universities and companies so dumb that they steal and misattribute other people’s content, but still operate their legitimate blogs and websites from those addresses. Not likely is it? So, I won’t post the IPs of these people, who are most likely to be victims themselves.

That being my first thought, I don’t have a second. I will try to find a suitable response though, in my quarter-skilled way and post it here if I ever come up with any reasonable suggestions.
If anyone else knows a solution, please let us know.

Popularity: 9% [?]

Mainly for Mana at Skepticum

Friday, 23rd November, 2007

Look what Google ads has added to a post with the title Praying for rain and wet t-shirts on Mana’s blog…..
Screen shot of google ad

Maybe your prayers have been answered, Mana/Black Sun/Billy and any other commenters who preferred the idea of an equally effective Dionysian alternative to the standard dull prayers for rain being offered by the governor.

I would have sent this as a comment but I can’t see any image getting past any working comments filter. I’ve cut out a bit of text and the post and left it at actual size so it stays legible.

Popularity: 9% [?]