58 thoughts on “Stangroominations”

    1. Someone used that to contact Stangroom with evidence of their incivility. Stangroom did reply, but was not very civil.

      Go read the blog post about it here.

  3. I’m not sure why nonbelievers get all the heat for being uncivil when it is the believers who relish the thought of us burning in hell. Sticks and stone may break my bones but hell is eternal.

  4. Oh, that idiot… He’s at least, if not even more, as pathetic as Wally Smith and his sock-puppets (Wally Smith is, apparently, the real name of Tom Johnson et.al. who went back to trolling and pissed Ophelia off enough she outed him yesterday or this morning, I don’t remember which…).

    1. Erm – can we not report it as a mere fit of temper? I outed him because there was never any real reason to protect his secrecy in the first place, and because he does deliberate harm with his secret identity, and because he clearly has no intention of stopping.

      Also because I know people who are afraid of unknowingly getting him in their labs some day!

      1. Sorry, it wasn’t a ‘mere fit of temper.’ Considering how many months that clown has pointlessly harassed you in his weird stalkerish way, you were remarkably restrained. Far more restrained than I would have been.

        I just assumed that most of the WEIT people would probably know about Wally ‘Tom Johnson’ Smith and his campaign of sock-puppetry-harassment. And, therefore, would ‘get it’ without elaboration.

        Kind of like if I said “Jeffery Dahmer had issues…” I would expect people to understand the reference and, therefore, I wouldn’t need to do much in the way of elaboration and delve into his sick life…

  5. It seems that one of your roles in the blogosphere is to serve as a source of traffic for lesser bloggers.

    Rosenau
    Stangroom

    Maybe I should find a popular blog and simply make a Nanny-Nanny-Boo-Boo post and try to get some attention.

  6. You need to be more like me, who apparently pegged the clueless gobshite reading of Mr Ruse at 100%, despite never mentioning the quantitative nature of my measurement.

          4. Yeah, atheist rudeness I can get over. I don’t feel responsible for accommodationist idiocy, or like Wally Smith I would also be embarrassed.

            But supporting a-editism is a hot-button issue for me. I want my edits! [/sulks]

          5. Also, I recognize your handle from OnEarth. Leading question over there? LOL!

            [Btw, I think you need to edit your comment: surely you mean “slip on the posting button”?]

      2. Has Stangroom been bitten by Chris Mooney?

        And does that bite turn him into Accommodation-Man?

        ♫ Accommodation-Man! ♬
        ♪ Accommodation-Man! ♫
        ♩ Does whatever a Mooney can! ♪
        ♬ See him whine ♩
        ♪ About civility ♫
        ♬ And clutch his pearls ♩
        ♫ Over Coyne and PZ! ♬
        ♩ Look out! Here comes Accommodation-Man! ♪

        1. No, no. He was bitten by a radioactive accommodationist. It gives him the New-Atheist-scolding capacity of ten ordinary men! Faster to shift blame than a speeding locomotive! Capable of leaping gigantic suppressed premises in a single bound!

  8. Ooooh, not allowing comments. That’s not only evidence of civility. It’s Brave.

    Anyway, 65% is mediocre Jerry.
    Need to Try Harder! 🙂

    2. Yeah, really. That’s just ‘D’ professor… Stop resting on your tenure and go out there do some real rudeness… 🙂

  9. Daylight Atheism has a good toungue-in-cheek “Open Letter” to Stangroom saying, basically, hey don’t forget to expose all the incivility on MY page.

    1. And he didn’t! I’m mightily offended that he didn’t consider me worthy of inclusion. I mean, come on – I know that when it comes to flaming the religious, I’m no PZ or Jerry Coyne, but I would’ve thought my manifest rudeness and incivility deserved at least some condemnation.

  10. YES!!!
    Keep working on it Jerry! You can do even better!
    But when did pharyngula become house of pharyngula? Was PZ coronated?
    I wonder if JS will ever dare show his face at the house of WEIT.

    1. I am so with you on this.

      Why do I know this cowardly dolt’s name now? Why don’t we allow this coward to slide into the obscurity he so richly deserves?

      I mean, c’mon. He’s turned off comments. He’s like the cuckoo in Dr. Coyne’s post. Stangroom blats his post, allows no discussion of any kind, and the reasonable people who are offended hatch his verbal eggs. Eeesh.

      1. I recommended over at Pharyngula that we nominate him for the Mr Irrelevancy Award.

        And the way to provide him with that prize is to ignore him.

        He’s an attention whore, nothing more.

        But I suppose I’ll be characterized as “incivil” for pointing out the obvious.

      2. I agree that a good shunning is in order, but not until after we’ve all had a hearty laugh at his expense and farted in his general direction. Mockery is often as effective as shunning, after all.

        Mr. Stangroom, I regret to inform you that your mother was a hamster, and we all know what your father smells like.

        Cheers,

        b&

  12. And this crack, secret, elite, secret, and crack philosopher doesn’t even get the difference between acting like a fool and simply being a fool. There’s lots of people give philosphy a bad name these days, and I’m afraid Snark Gordon is one of them.

  14. “Curiouser and curiouser!”

    Stangroom refers to “some twit” in an article entitled “Would You Eat Your Cat?” at blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=2348

    Clicking on “some twit” takes you to http://www.jeremystangroom.com/

    “Curiouser and curiouser!”

  15. I’m in agreement with Rick #10, Stangroom’s just a troll getting off on causing headaches for the Gnu’s, ignore him, he doesn’t actually care about what he’s saying, just about getting attention.

  16. Incivility has nothing to do with the validity of the atheistic arguments being made.

    It’s simply turning the topic away from the thesis by emotively focussing on style.

    It’s bankrupt intellectual cowardice.

  17. So I meant to ask this last time Stangroom came up but I never did so here we go:

    He has a degree in sociology and he calls himself a moral philosopher now. So what exactly does he do? Ignore the scientific training of his degree and choose instead to just sit around and talk about morals without ever backing anything up with evidence?

    I realize sociology isn’t physics or biology but it seems like choosing to just engage in philosophy without the empirical side of things despite having a degree in a science is a measure lazier than just having always been a philosopher and not realizing that you could sometimes test your ideas.

      1. Apologies, I read the bio last time I meant to ask and should have re-read it since it had been a while ago.

      1. Funny – you could almost say that it’s an article of faith with them that New Atheists are rude 🙂

  18. The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

    <checks codebook />

    Launch sustained…rubber chicken volleys…at the nearest fire hydrant…every five minutes…until further notice.

    Really?

    What on Earth for?

    Oh, never mind. Orders is orders, I guess, even if they don’t make any bloody sense.

    Now, where’d I put that damned catapult…?

    Cheers,

    b&

    1. It is in the second drawer of that battered mahogany cabinet.
      No, the second drawer from the TOP!
      The EAC have hidden-cameras everywhere.

  19. My “Incivility Institute” domains are functional.
    [www.incivilityinstitute.com]
    [www.incivilityinstitute.org]
    Stangroom is automatically banned from commenting, as is Christ Money.
    Be offended.

  21. Gnus are perfectly justified in being incivil. Consider what’s at stake: do we continue to advance in our knowledge and understanding of the natural world and as a side effect improve the condition of mankind? Or do we favor abusing children by teaching them lies and trying to turn the clock back to the pre-Darwin era?

    Sounds to this civil person like more than enough reason to be incivil. The stakes are high enough that Miss Manners™ herself would agree to throw the etiquette book out the door.

    A new motto for Gnus: teaching creationism is a form of child abuse.

    Just like whacking your kid excessively hard for his/her misdeeds, in accordance with biblical injunctions not to spare the rod, is in fact illegal in civilized places.

  23. I wish Stangroom would discover me, I love being uncivil !! *waves* Jeremy, take me !!
    Like I wrote elsewhere today, people do not not believe in evolution because PZ Myers said fuck on his blog, or Dawkins says something stupid about some woman. Why is it so hard to understand for a guy with presumably at least average intelligence, that people refuse to consider evidence for evolution, or accept scientific facts, not because someone is rude on the internet, but because they have been brainwashed by religion into doing so ?

Comments are closed.