What the H - Holmes is back!

I see your posts haven't gotten any shorter, and that you haven't stopped misrepresenting people.If it really is you, perhaps we can expect an improvement in honesty levels this time around?

I never found Holmes's contributions anything to celebrate, except when he was arguing with Rrhain. (It's like crossing the streams, only instead of the proton packs, it's sophistry.)But honesty, NJ, we already have the POTM threads; is all of EvC to be a mutual admiration society for a select few individuals? I would rather EvC was a place where people produced honest argumentation in favor of their positions and simply didn't take it so seriously when people had the temerity to disagree with them, rather than a place where people thought winning the argument was always more important than anything, including civility.Holmes, in his past incarnation, was one of the chief figures guilty of the latter. Yeah, and I helped. I'm doing my best to change. Is Holmes? I don't yet get the sense that he has. If the past few days are any indication he's just going to keep doing what he's been doing, using dishonesty and misrepresentation to defend positions like everybody knows he does, like I've proven he does, even as they become more and more ridiculous, because he simply can't ever bear to admit when he's wrong.Sorry if that's not something I feel like I can get behind. And how is a thread about Holmes's return not the appropriate topic to raise concerns about the return of Holmes? I think it's remarkably bad form to open a thread about someone just to trash them, and I'm ashamed of the times that I've felt compelled to do it in the past.Plenty of people trash Faith every time it's suggested she be "allowed" to return. Holmes's conduct was just as bad, potentially even worse for how it usually went unnoticed. Look, he's got every opportunity to prove me wrong and I hope he does. A good start would be if he started taking on some of the creationists with some good science. I'd savor the chance to actually learn something from Holmes, like I used to, years ago. (So, actually, I guess when I said "never", I was lying. There actually was a time when I would look forward to what Holmes had to say.)Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Because you're not as dishonest, and while it's hard to get you to admit when you're wrong, there are at least some things you're not willing to do in advance of an argument.You may be wrong but at least you're not nearly as pernicious about it. Does it make it a little more incomprehensible if I tell you that my respect for someone isn't based so much on what they know or if they agree with me, as much as how they act? Sure, I was able to find something about that I collected a few years ago. EvC Forum: An Inconvenient TruthI appreciate it, but if people have cause to take issue with my behavior, I'd rather than they were open about their concerns rather than simply allow me to blunder along in a way that was an obstacle to more interesting debate.Indeed I've long begged people to do just that; I rarely have takers. Either I've managed to completely cow everybody into submission, or this rumored silent majority that finds me so insufferable simply doesn't exist.Of course, there are nonetheless a few members that will consider this false humility, but since nothing I could say could convince them otherwise, that's not really something that concerns me. A lot less signal, a lot more noise. Holmes became obsessed with winning arguments to the point where he abandoned all efforts to actually inform.He's got reason to have a really unique perspective on things. I wouldn't presume to offer up his biography, and doubtless I'd get it all wrong, but that stuff was always a lot more interesting than the sophistry and misrepresentation his posting efforts seemed to devolve into.

I like bombast.I'll try to work on the other stuff, though brevity demands that I not crowd a post with "by your leave" this and "I'm sure you're a great guy, but" that, which might give the impression of arrogance, I don't know.

I guess I don't understand what you're asking. The opportunity you have to not engage in disruptive and dishonest behavior now is the exact same opportunity you had when you left.You're asking for some kind of "clean slate", but there really is no slate to clean. There's not some punishment waiting in the wings for you for what you did in the past. My complaint then, and my fear now, is that you'll continue to support ideas you know are probably wrong with disingenuous argumentation; that you'll continue to substitute rebutting your opponents with attacking assertions no one has made; that you'll continue to quote-mine your opponents and deliberately misinterpret their remarks in the most impeachable way; and that you'll do so in the middle of messages so long and confusing, none of the admins will read them (thus, your misconduct goes undetected while my frustration becomes the basis of moderator action.)It's not within my power, H, to punish you for your sins. I have no interest in doing so. I'm merely asking now what I asked you more than a year ago - to go forth and sin no more. The opportunity for you to do just that is as wide open as it's ever been. I have not brought up the past because I'm trying to get you sanctioned for past behavior. That's not in my power to do, and if the admins were going to take action for the behaviors I chronicled, they would have done so back then.I only brought it up because NJ asked me to do so. He wanted an example of what I thought was objectionable behavior on your part, so I provided one. I linked to that post merely for his edification, not to seek sanctions against you.If I ever do have cause to complain, it'll be about the things you say from now on, I assure you. The past is not forgotten, but it will only be an impediment to your current activities if you choose to make it one.

You're free to read whatever you like, of course. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Sure, there's a small number who try. But they don't give me much to go on, so I don't take it very seriously.Like, Michael thinks that I sound like an asshole. Well, ok, but what can I do about that? When he reads my posts, he hears an asshole tone of voice in his head. But you can read anything that way. What could I possibly say or do that would convince him otherwise, now that he's in the habit of reading my posts in an asshole tone of voice?Use more smileys? Do you read his posts top to bottom? If you just skim over, like the admins do, it's easy to miss.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

The difference, though, is that in Rashomon, the point is that a given instant in time is fleeting and ephemeral, and that it only survives as our memories. Where our memories differ, there's really no such thing as the "true" course of events; each recollection is as true as another.However, here on the internet, what you say and do does persist. It remains as objective fact, and to portray a given post as saying something other than what it actually does - as you consistently do to Rrhain, and to Nator, and to Molbiogirl, and to Brennakimi, and to many, many others - is not a charming meditation on the ephemerality of truth, it's the basest slander and misrepresentation. And I told you you didn't have to. It certainly isn't in my power to make you do so, even if I wanted to, which I don't. I can't understand why you feel you're being asked to defend conduct that happened a year ago. I told you, repeatedly, that you would not have to do so. That I had no wish for you to do so. That it was my earnest hope that you would simply turn your back on how you've acted in the past and continue in a new vein, a vein where you don't relentlessly misrepresent people and where you actually respond to their arguments as written, not as you had wished them to be written.Remember? I told you that two weeks ago:

quote:

---

I have not brought up the past because I'm trying to get you sanctioned for past behavior. That's not in my power to do, and if the admins were going to take action for the behaviors I chronicled, they would have done so back then.

​

I only brought it up because NJ asked me to do so. He wanted an example of what I thought was objectionable behavior on your part, so I provided one. I linked to that post merely for his edification, not to seek sanctions against you.

​

If I ever do have cause to complain, it'll be about the things you say from now on, I assure you. The past is not forgotten, but it will only be an impediment to your current activities if you choose to make it one.

---

How you read those statements and were able to interpret them as "I'm going to hound you about your past wherever you go until you defend it" is beyond understanding. It's the innocuousness that's so aggravating. We can be talking about just the littlest, most insignificant thing - and you still can't refrain from misrepresenting me, can't refrain from relentless contrarianism, can't refrain from disingenuous "I don't know what you're talking about, who, little ol' me?" complaints when these behaviors of yours are discussed.It's like you just can't bear to lose an argument, or be seen as anything but the guy who stomped his opponent with logic and reason and just wearing them down with dishonesty, no matter how small the stakes are. It's not a communication problem. It's an honesty problem - you don't post with any. You misrepresent your opponents relentlessly, like the way you've misrepresented post 24, which I've quoted above.You're always so adamant about how right you are, and how you're an expert in whatever you're talking about, that you simply invent arguments to poke holes in, when you can't actually find any holes in what your opponent is saying.We're in an example of it, right now. It plays better of poor ol' Holmes is the victim of a guy who can't get over the past; thus, a post where I specifically said:

quote:

---

You're asking for some kind of "clean slate", but there really is no slate to clean.

---

is "reinterpreted" and referred to by you as a post that said "I'm going to dog you about our past forevermore", even though anybody at all can read it and see that's not what I said, at all.You misrepresent your opponents to make you look better - to play the harried victim, chased around by all these playground bullies and their personal attacks, when all they're really saying is "stop misrepresenting your opponents." When I say that you post in a way that is dishonest, I don't know how much more careful I can be about respecting the difference between characterizations of a post and imprecations against a person. I don't know you, Holmes. I don't know if you're a dishonest person or not. I've been very careful to avoid any attacks against you personally.But I simply won't refrain from criticizing the way in which you post, where you misrepresent people, ignore rebuttals, cite as "evidence" sources that actually contradict your position (and hope nobody clicks through to read them). I don't know, maybe you think all that behavior would add up to somebody who's probably not a very good person. I honestly don't think about it like that. If you think being criticized about your behavior, and by "behavior" I mean the things you write here on this forum, constitutes an attack on your person then I submit that you're simply being hypersensitive. (In which case the internet probably isn't for you.) I don't know how to ask a question, except directly. And I don't know how to object to bad behavior except directly, too. If that's too sharp an edge for you, again, that's hypersensitivity. God! How many times do I have to say it?

quote:

---

If I ever do have cause to complain, it'll be about the things you say from now on, I assure you.

---

Everything we've been arguing about is what you've been posting since you returned from outer space or wherever. The single time the past was brought up was by NJ, and he was curious. He wanted an example, so I provided one that I knew about.That was it. I haven't discussed it nor raised the subject. I couldn't be less interested in the past. It's the present and the future that concern me, your behavior in the present which has been abominable, and your future behavior, which you still have every opportunity in the world to change, not least of which because none of the Admins seem inclined to even read your posts. Just the one question. Are you going to abandon your technique of misrepresenting your opponents, as I have documented you doing lately?I'll leave you with precisely the same point you missed last time:

quote:

---

It's not within my power, H, to punish you for your sins. I have no interest in doing so. I'm merely asking now what I asked you more than a year ago - to go forth and sin no more. The opportunity for you to do just that is as wide open as it's ever been.

---

Go forth and stop being dishonest and contrarian. If you can maintain that path, my objections will evaporate, and you'll have no more issue with me. I might even learn something from you, like I used to.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

How can you continue to hold that position after what I've posted? How could you interpret my post 23 in the way that you've done? How could you assert a completely opposite meaning, and then say you're not misrepresenting me? More misrepresentation.Do you have a specific example of anything recent? I mean, you wouldn't be bringing up the past, now would you? Since you've expressed your desire to leave the past in the past, I mean, and I've agreed. It happens because the things you assert aren't true. The things you've asserted I've said are things I haven't said.It really is just that simple. It happens because you're doing it. I don't see how you can deny that you are after I've shown you that you are. How does that work, in your mind? Funny - those people are everybody you've disagreed with, everybody whom you've misrepresented.Look, Holmes, when so many people agree that you're being mendacious - I mean, don't pretend that it's just me; Nator, Mol, Brenna, Rrhain, and others I can't even remember have all accused you of precisely the same thing - doesn't it get a little ridiculous to deny it?When everybody around you disputes your contention that you're actually Napoleon Bonaparte, 18th-century military strategist, isn't there some point when a reasonable person should consider that they're wrong, no matter how obvious it must be that they're not? Holmes, I honestly can't predict what you'll construe as a "personal attack." But I simply can't allow your misrepresentations to go unchallenged, even if you don't realize that you're doing it. I can only hope that if I catch you out in enough of them, you'll begin to see the sense of what I've been telling you. As always, civility will be restored when you restore it. It's been in your power to establish civil discourse the whole time.

What's your explanation for these "communication problems"? You don't speak English? They don't?Doesn't "communication problems" get untenable as an explanation when the people who supposedly have a hard time communicating communicate completely effectively with each other, and with others - with everybody but you, in fact?Brad McFall has communication problems. What you have is a misrepresentation problem.

When people misrepresent others, and I notice, then I point it out. Not everybody does it. Sometimes it's by genuine accident.Holmes is the only one here who does it so regularly.I'm still wondering, Jon, when you're going to contribute to debate in a substantial way. Is nipping around my heels the sole contribution you're capable of?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Unfortunately for you it's also an easy one to prove. All I have to do - as I did - was show you the original message as written juxtaposed against the way you represented it.Anyone can see that you misrepresented the content of that message. Until the misrepresentation is expunged, we aren't discussing the same issue. I'm discussing my point, and you're discussing a point nobody has made.When you cease the misrepresentations, that's when the debate can continue. It's impossible to have debate when each side is talking about two different things.It's not a personal attack, Holmes. It's a recognition that your behavior is preventing real debate. When you cease the behavior debate can continue. Not because I'm not going to let it continue until then, or something; but because your behavior is an obstacle to debate.I'd love to debate the issues with you. I'm not stopping the debate. You are, with your misrepresentations. When the misrepresentations come to an end, the debate will continue. You're sitting on the roadblock and complaining that the traffic is stalled. It's absurd. Initially, yes. Which is why the first 20 or 30 times, you got the benefit of the doubt.But as the misrepresentation is addressed, B's motives become clear. When B continues to misrepresent, even when called on it, and insists that his misrepresentation isn't one, it's obvious that B is being disingenuous.Hence, my conclusions about you. One or two misrepresentations in a career of posting? Accident. One or two every single post, or more? That's someone with a problem posting honestly. "You're misrepresenting me" is not an emotional response. It's an objective assessment of one's post, similar to "your argument is wrong." Indeed, to portray it as "emotional" is to be engaged in a misrepresentation, which is why it's so hilarious for you to continue to deny what you're so obviously doing.Do you really think that my recent posts to you have been emotional tirades? Really, honestly? When the only thing I'm trying to do is explain to you how your posts prevent us from achieving your goal of intelligent, meaningful debate?How can that be a tirade? I'm trying to help you. That's why it's so important for you to recognize when you're misrepresenting people, and to try to do it as little as possible.When you deny wholesale that you've ever done it even as you're doing it - when you say "I never took any cookies" when you're caught with your hand in the cookie jar - you only drive the threads you're in further off-topic, with the result that 300 posts later, you've completely succeeded in driving debate to a standstill.Civil discussion resumes, Holmes, when you decide to be civil. Again, you have every opportunity to do so in the future, and if you can, you'll have no more complaint from me. I'm not interested in making you atone for the past; that's not within my power. I simply want you to stop being an obstacle to real debate.

There's actually a number of probative questions in that post, which I wonder if you would consider answering.