Really!!? But the troll site is using the same old boring right wing rhetoric that we always see used against intellectuals. In case you haven't heard of the general ad hominems:
"You are immature."
"You have a psychological disorder which I can diagnose and so can everybody else."
"You are only a pseudo-intellectual, not a real one, because I have the power to tell the difference."
"You are corrupting children."
"You are not as smart as you think you are. REALLY smart people (whom I can recognise and distinguish from the non-smart ones) hide their light under a bushel in a reflex of high modesty."
"You are just using big words because you want me to feel bad."
"You have a big ego, and that is the only reason you have a blog."
(etc.)
Ah! Now I feel better.
That troll site (which claims to be "satirical"??) shows no sense of irony whatsoever...
Thanks for that... I didn't ever want to go back there... 
Didn't I tell you to be careful what you wish for Arthur? 
I'm not sure what you mean by that, Iain.
Daniel writes, in an update which--like the post itself--may or not be there the next time you look: This review is in response to one done by Arthur recently on one of my posts (the one that attracted 96 comments and a great deal of jealousy).
I think what we have here is a textbook case of legitimate fisking versus faux-fisking. What I said in my legitimate fisking of Daniel's post on homosexuality, I would have said if we were still on cordial terms. Apart from a postscript added subsequently, there was nothing in that post that could conceivably have been construed as a personal attack on Daniel: I was attacking his argument, not him. (If he can't tell the difference, that's his problem.) Nor was it motivated by "jealousy," since I've never seen myself in competition with him: he blogs on the issues that are important to him (among which currently includes flaming myself and others--though it wasn't always that way, and I wonder how many of his readers are getting bored with the direction his blog is currently taking), and I blog on those that interest me.
And occasionally, we both blog on trivial matters like the status of Jedi as a religion--but we are hardly alone in doing so.
Daniel's post, by contrast, is a faux-fisk. It's not critiquing an argument (since I'm not advancing one), but rather is designed as a malicious personal attack. He claims that my Jedi post is typical of the content on Five Public Opinions, and since any cursory glance will reveal that to be a ridiculous statement, it would appear Daniel doesn't mind very much if his readers regard him as a liar. I'm sure they already recognise the irony of his claim that "Derivative Arthur has a very, very large ego," when he keeps a laundry list of reader's comments and fanmail on his sidebar.
By the way, I have never banned Daniel from commenting here, so he's welcome to come and defend himself. (Probably not his style, though.)
when he keeps a laundry list of reader's comments and fanmail on his sidebar.
I've been thinking about having a choice comments sidebar section... like that "Poopey-Pants*" one from "Lance".
All the stupid and false nasty things people have said about me...
* Paraphrase
While Daniel can write what he wants and about who he wants on his own blog, bit unfair that the objects of his ire (reviews of other blogs coming soon) have no right to reply on his blog. Seems a bit like sniping from the top of an impregnable castle.
I don't know why you bother, AV. All you are doing is focusing attention on something best avoided.
I have never banned Daniel from commenting here...
Same here, but he never does. Perhaps to do so would break the illusion of his being the Lone Ranger in our troubled world.
Cue music....They said you'd never make it....etc
Congratulations Arthur.
I not that Daniel classes himself as a "world citizen". Presumably that is a world without gays and intellectuals.
PS. Do we have to continue the "fisking" verb? I happen to enjoy reading Robert Fisk.
I don't know why you bother, AV. All you are doing is focusing attention on something best avoided.
I kind of agree with this. I've said my farewell to Seeking Utopia, so my commenting here is a bit tautologous...
Still, the faux-fixking for dummies pic probably has wider applications 
It's in .png format I noticed. Is open source rubbing off on you Arthur?
I don't know why you bother, AV. All you are doing is focusing attention on something best avoided.
True, true.
It's in .png format I noticed. Is open source rubbing off on you Arthur?
I have to admit that you're speaking on matters somewhat outside my ken, "academic" though I may be.
While Daniel can write what he wants and about who he wants on his own blog, bit unfair that the objects of his ire (reviews of other blogs coming soon) have no right to reply on his blog. Seems a bit like sniping from the top of an impregnable castle.
More importantly, it also represents a radical new direction for Seeking Utopia: a blog which for a long time concerned itself almost exclusively with international politics and current events--particularly those involving the conflict in the Middle East.
While that kind of blog might not be everyone's cup of tea, it did net him a good many regular contributors. (And wasn't it a team blog at one time?) But now the bulk of his blogging is devoted to sniping at other bloggers, and it would be interesting to hear from those of his readers who still belong to the "inner circle," as to what they think about Seeking Utopia's new focus.
And I'm not concerned about not being able to comment at Daniel's blog directly. He reads this blog and those of his other targets religiously anyway (in fact, he's reading this right now).
For the one or two of who are still interested . . .
Daniel responds, in his own cowardly way:
This post was written in response to: a man who took a comment of mine from Beep's blog and ridiculed it and me.
Nope. The comment--or so I was led to believe--was made by an anonymous fundamentalist Christian poster who would sign off his comments with "daniel." Given that (capital 'D' Daniel) identifies himself as a "fundamentalist atheist," I assumed I was not dealing with the same person.
(Was that you, then, Daniel? I'm sure BeepBeep would be very interested to learn that you have been posing as a fundy on her blog.)
The same man then followed this with a review of a whole post of mine on homosexuality in which he ridiculed both it
Nope. I critiqued it. There's a difference.
and me plus called me a cretin (despite this fact my post received 96 comment).
Again, I did call him a cretin, but that had nothing to do with the amount of comments his post received--the great bulk of which disagreed with his views on homosexuality, I might add.
The cretin remark emerged in a later update, and in response to snarkiness that appeared on Daniel's blog soon after my original post appeared. The post in its original form can still be seen on Punditocracy Watch.
The same man then attacked me on his site over my use of a photograph of a dead Palestinian child.
Nope: I attacked the use of the photograph, certainly--and wondered what it would achieve besides robbing the infant of her dignity--but nowhere in that post did I cast dispersions on Daniel's character.
We're seeing a pattern emerging here, I think. Everytime Daniel's posts are critiqued fairly, he takes it very personally.
contd . . .
Then he began to target readers of my blog trying to ingratiate himself with them.
Allow me to take the opportunity, then, to offer my most heartfelt apologies to Lucy, BeepBeep and DrunkenTune.
I had no idea you were Daniel's property.
Daniel, I know you're reading this. And I know what I have said will prompt yet another bout of "redecorating" at your blog.
But don't you think your readers are getting sick of having to read about this little flamewar of yours? (I have the feeling mine are.) What do you tell them when they ask you to explain how attacking Bruce, Ninglun, myself, or anyone else who has ever had the temerity not to share your opnion on all matters, brings the world closer to this Utopia you're seeking? Don't you think they'd rather you go back to pursuing the topics you used to pursue, long ago, back in the days before you started taking it as a personal affront that someone whould describe himself as a weak atheist?
So why bother dragging your blog down with this nonsense? If you have anything to say, have the intestinal fortitude to say it here.
AV, do look at my latest update. Some might say I have "love-bombed" him...
Apart from establishing beyond any shadow of a doubt his RWDB credentials with his latest bout of subtle (or not-so-subtle) homophobia, I'm wondering just how much of his progressive-minded readership will go along with it.
Blatant homophobia, I would have thought, but the psychopathology we have been witness to bores me now.
Blatant homophobia, I would have thought,
Interestingly, he went to some length to "explain" the beef he has with me; the beef he has with you he can sum up in two words: old gay. What more needs to be said?
I'm not sure what you mean by that, Iain.
You made a comment at mine about wishing you were popular enough to attract a troll in respone to my post about my trolls
You made a comment at mine about wishing you were popular enough to attract a troll in respone to my post about my trolls
Oh, yes.
All right. I've kept out of the argument. I've refrained from taking sides. In fact, I gave Daniel the benefit of the doubt and stood by him when he closed off his website from the outside world.
Yet, I cannot take it any more. Daniel has removed me because I questioned the recent post he gave on AV.
If you're reading this, Daniel, I am willing to forgive you. What you did was wrong, and you did hurt me, but I can put it aside.
Daniel, why did you do it?
Why did you do it?
DT, I too tried to keep out of the argument at first, but it proved impossible. Arthur will vouch for that. In fact you can see me doing it here. On Bruce's blog I noted in a comment: "Oh, and about comment editing: I was really just discouraging interpersonal issues involving other people and their blogs spreading to my blog. After all, it is nothing to do with me, and I hope I have made my views on the issue involved clear enough, without entering into any disputes between individuals..." But Daniel wants disciples, not readers, so my neutrality didn't work. Further, I had concluded by early this month that much that he said about Arthur and Bruce was nonsense, so here I am commenting on Arthur's site. I find it sad, I have to say. I mean that.
I see Daniel has pass-protected his "open" site now.
Hey how do you access that site?
ah. I have a troll if anyone wants one. It's full of the standard rhetoric -- really quite a classic in its own unconscious way.
Unbelievable, Daniel has gone the whole hog and stopped anyone else apart from his own members even reading the site. The man had gone too far, absolute overkill. Hopefully he will realise how thin skinned he is being.
Seriously, this is pretty clearly a case of paranoia. I am neither gloating nor flaming in saying that. I have had some experience of dealing with such cases.
Yet, I cannot take it any more. Daniel has removed me because I questioned the recent post he gave on AV.
Sorry you got dragged into this, DT. Your only crime, you realise, was to disagree with Daniel.
Well, that, and--as I think I've pointed out elsewhere--the fact that Philaletheia is precisely the blog that Seeking Utopia pretends to be (insofar as it promotes civility and understanding on the blogosphere). Daniel knows this, and I daresay Daniel's not happy about it.
Hey how do you access that site?
Not that you're missing much, Mikey, but at the moment it's password-protected. That wasn't the case a couple of days ago.
This whole episode has been pretty surreal. I guess we should all be thankful that Daniel only runs a blog and not a commune.
Hm. Something about Daniel, when I once had cause to speak with him, reminded me of the documentary I saw last night about those students who were psychologically as well as physically kidnapped (but of course on a psychological basis) from their lives, in Ireland, and forced to join a kind of cult.
Daniel seems to be afflicted with that psychological disposition which I dare say has become the most common one today. It's the old dominance and submission dynamic of a dyed in the wool authoritarian, which he seeks to impose. And how interesting it is how many people respond to an attitude of domination rather than discussion. Like I said, it must be the most common thing in the world these days. That is how people can be easily collected for a cult.If you haven't learnt the discipline of thinking for yourself, then you will bend whichever way the wind blows, and this the cult leader knows implicitly.
If you haven't learnt the discipline of thinking for yourself, then you will bend whichever way the wind blows, and this the cult leader knows implicitly.
That's only too true, Jen, and it applies to institutions much larger and more powerful than Jim Jones' or Daniel's.
I went to a Catholic school, and they would show us documentaries about young people who got trapped in weird religious cults.
The message, however, was not "think for yourself," but "if you believe in nothing, you'll believe in anything." Precisely what you'd expect a cult leader to say.
Further to my earlier comment. I am not a trained psychotherapist, nor am I engaging in an ad hominem argument. On the other hand, the little work (other than English coaching) that I do these days is mentoring a small number of students who have diagnosed personality disorders. I work closely with trained counsellors in that work. Looking at Daniel's "case history" and at this clinical information I have reason to think elements of this have been manifesting themselves through Daniel's actions over several months.
I am saying this out of real concern about the guy, despite everything.
He's baaaaack!
Minus the troll post, and minus promised troll posts directed at Bruce and Ninglun.
But the vitriol and the paranoia (new "members" are on a month's trial, and must submit their name and background details, etc.) remain.
Commenting by HaloScan
