Links to comments of posts on ScienceBlogs may be broken since it was acquired by National Geographic, but screenshots of most of these comments are in the files attached below.
quoting your kid [screenshot] saying what a "strident" atheist might say:
No, this is the attitude I'd call strident:[Note: The original link pointing to the page where the quote "Next idea for a blog post ..." came from is broken. The closest thing I can find is this link from the Internet Archive Wayback Machine at archive.org: See here.]
Now you have a few options, a couple of which are:
woo who went by the name "Jon_Howard" took a look at Myers' Dungeon page, where he lists the banned commenters and the purported reasons for banning, and made these comments [screenshots #1 and #2] at the old Richard Dawkins forums. (Screenshots and archives of the relevant forum posts are available at the bottom of the page.):
To begin with, according to the dungeon section of your site, you had decided to enforce a ban against somebody called J.J. Ramsey. Your reasons given for that are as follows:
He was banned *immediately*. There were no "several" insults and he was *not* warned, this is pure fiction of PZ
Now I have no idea if that’s true or false—I don’t know how many warnings you gave, if any—but that doesn’t change the point.
Now when P.Z. Myers tried to explain away Thorsten's allegation, he went big and wrote the following slander [screenshot]:
There's one important thing that Jon_Howard is skipping over in his obsessive analysis of the people I've banned: when they go over the line and leave abusive comments that warrant banning, their comments are deleted. For example, one of these fellows he is defending made extremely inappropriate comments about my under-age daughter's sex life...and if you think I'm going to allow that kind of squalid viciousness stand, or that I'd leave such comments in place, you're going to have to rethink matters a bit.
[ ... snip ... ]
[Also note: Jon_Howard found three examples of people he did not think deserved banning: one I could have had reported for pedophilia, another that I tolerated for several years before finally giving him the boot, and a third...hmm. The third wasn't banned at all. There is a complete list of everyone banned at my site, and that guy isn't among them. All that writing, and he was really grasping at straws.]
Although Myers avoided mentioning me by name, his descriptions of the people discussed in Jon_Howard's "obsessive analysis" were enough for Jon_Howard to take the hint [screenshot]:
I fully agree with you removing Ramsey's posts off your site. I applaud you for it. I'd have done the same. I'd also have made sure I reported his ISP as he might have been a genuine threat to other kids (oh shock horror - there goes Jon reporting people again... :grumpy: )
(Again, screenshots and/or archived HTML pages of the exchange are attached below, in case the old forum finally goes offline.)
Now if Jon_Howard hadn't been a woo and thus somewhat ill-practiced in critical thinking, he might have noticed a couple red flags:
There's yet another red flag, but it would require Jon_Howard to be able to see about a year into the future, when Myers changed his story.
(I had considered the possibility that the "pzmyers" on Richard Dawkins' forum was not the same as the real P.Z. Myers, but the real P.Z Myers had posted a link on his own blog to the first page of the forum post that Jon_Howard had started, and that first page, a copy of which is attached below in case the old forum finally dies, shows "pzmyers" posting. If "pzmyers" and P.Z. Myers are not the same, then it is awfully strange that Myers didn't complain about an impostor who would have been very visible on this first page.)
this [screenshot, quote of PZ from an Intersection commenter, and a screenshot of that quote]:
He's written me in the past a few times, asking to be un-banned. [Actually, I didn't ask to be un-banned, but whatever.] No apologies for sneering at my daughter (not that I'd be in a mood to accept them, anyway), and always this whining that he only did it once. Which isn't true: he made the one post about it here, but then I found him complaining about Skatje on other sites, too.
(Just in case Myers changes that, a screenshot is at the bottom of this post.)
Let's get this straight. P.Z. Myers originally said that I "chose to insult my daughter here [i.e. on his blog], several times, after being warned," and even went to the trouble of concocting a sleazy story of what those "several times" were and why one couldn't find them on his blog. Now he admits that his blog had only one comment by me complaining about his kid -- which would make his previous stories utterly false. He tries to hide this with a red herring about me supposedly "complaining about Skatje on other sites," which probably really just means me complaining about Myers' dishonesty and inevitably mentioning Skatje in the process. However, that wouldn't explain why he originally claimed that there were multiple insults on his blog from the very beginning, nor does it explain how the sensational claims of "inappropriate comments about my under-age daughter's sex life" got downgraded to "complaining."
His response [broken link, screenshot here] was, when dissected, pretty silly:
Oh, jeez. I just saw where Mr Ramsey posted a link to prove I had accused him of slandering a minor sexually. Please do go look. You'll notice his name isn't mentioned or even hinted at;
It's rather rich for him to say that he hadn't even hinted that I had been "slandering a minor sexually" when he had convinced those with whom he talked on Richard Dawkins' old forum that I had done just that, as one can see in that last quote from Jon_Howard above. And a look at Myers' own comment makes clear that he's dead wrong about the part about my name not being "even hinted at." When Myers had mentioned on the Dawkins forums "one important thing that Jon_Howard is skipping over in his obsessive analysis of the people I've banned," he's making a really big hint that says, "Hey, go look back at Jon_Howard's posts to find out who the heck I'm talking about." Ok, so let's take that hint. Click on Myers' forum post, scroll up, scroll up ... ok, I've reached the top of the forum page so click on the link to the previous page in the forum thread, start from the bottom of the page and scroll up, scroll up ... ok, not much there, so click on on the link to the previous page in the forum thread, start from the bottom of the page and scroll up, scroll up ... and Aha! Jon_Howard names the people that P.Z. Myers was talking about, and one can easily match the three people named by Jon_Howard to the descriptions of the three people that Myers discussed in his reply to Jon_Howard.
In particular, of the three that Jon_Howard had mentioned, only one was associated with Myers' daughter at all--namely me--so when Myers mentions that one of the commenters discussed by Jon_Howard had "made extremely inappropriate comments about [his] under-age daughter's sex life," there's only one person that he could realistically be talking about. Jon_Howard's reply back to Myers is particularly damning, since Myers claims that one of the people that Jon_Howard named "could have had reported for pedophilia," and later Jon_Howard has come to the conclusion that "Ramsey" (me) "might have been a genuine threat to other kids."
I guess that when P.Z. Myers said, "Please do go look," he really meant, "Please take a casual look, but don't actually pay attention and find out I'm blowing smoke."
new blog where he posts more on atheist issues, and with this post is a new Dungeon page [screenshot] with this new lie:
Creepy obsessive. One of the few trolls I have some concerns about: he’s a little too solicitous of my family.This looks like a watered down, vaguer variant of the "I could have had reported for pedophilia" bit, which Myers not only contradicted but falsely claimed wasn't said about me at all. Notably, Myers has replaced a claim that he himself later contradicted (i.e. "chose to insult my daughter here, several times, after being warned") with a different claim that's pretty much impossible to verify. One has to take him at his word, and given his track record, that's pretty foolish.
ETA: Myers has since removed his Dungeon page. Good riddance to libelous rubbish.