answering one fallacy with another

February 23, 2010 — 20 Comments

Today, if you come across an idea or an opinion held by at least a few thousand people, chances are it has at least one blog, an official website with talking points, and a Facebook page dedicated to it. Actually, in a world where hundreds of millions of people use the web to learn and communicate, if your opinion isn’t floating out in the social media realm, it’s irrelevant as far as the public is concerned. That’s exactly why growing numbers of creationist groups have been taking to the web and creating pages asking social media users to support their cause by joining their group and showing that the voice of creationism is strong to all those evolutionist heathens. And oddly enough, plenty of scientifically minded web users fell for this trick and decided to start a page that counters one bandwagon fallacy with another. But just like trying to chop off the mythical Hydra’s head only results in two more mouthfuls of fangs, playing the creationists’ games isn’t going to help prove the validity of evolution to those who want to deny the science which sends them into hysterical bouts of fear…

Let’s remember that when it comes to science, facts are facts. They live independently of public opinion. A very good example of just how irrelevant public agreement on those facts is, was presented by Penn and Teller on their show during an episode in which they took votes on the gender of rabbits. Male rabbits will be male and female rabbits will be female no matter how many times they would’ve voted. This is why any argument which bases popular support as its main piece of supporting evidence is inherently flawed. Creationists could count their numbers until next Friday and gloat about how many people have doubts with the validity of evolution to a roar of supportive crowds. That doesn’t mean creationism is valid and never will. But hold on a second, don’t scientists talk about a scientific consensus and use that as evidence for evolutionary theories? Yes, but when we’re talking about a scientific consensus, things are very different. Going back to the Penn and Teller’s rabbit example, the only way to find out who’s male and who’s female is to take a look, and the same idea applies to every field of scientific study. To come up with a consensus on the facts, someone has to find out what those facts actually are and document them for peer review and debate based on the findings of others.

And this is what scientists do, take a look and let the colleagues do the same. When enough scientists take a good, long look, debate, and come to an agreement that all of them saw the same thing and until someone is going to collect compelling evidence proving them wrong, the matter is settled and their conclusions could be made official. Compare that to creationists posturing about how many people share their beliefs or doubt the scientific conclusion that evolution is a very good theory based on a solid, factual framework. Can they offer a testable, workable alternative to today’s evolutionary biology? Considering that many vocal creationists can’t even get a few rudimentary scientific basics straight, I wouldn’t hold my breath about that. And this is exactly why the last thing the scientific minded should do is give in to creationist games and reply to their fallacy with an identical one, especially when they’re the ones in a position which can use real, tangible evidence to make their case instead of relying on pointless popularity contests. If you really want to prove something creationist zealots, you’re certainly not going to do it by making important science a social media competition.

Besides, even if creationists blogs and pages had a hundredth of the popularity of their scientific counterparts, would those who equate Darwin with Hitler consider their cause lost and accept they may be wrong? Maybe, but those who did would be the exception rather than the rule. The vast majority of creationists would do what that always do when their arguments fall flat and move the goalposts, decrying that so many could ascribe to the “corrupt, atheistic, and morally bankrupt evil that is evolution” and keep insisting that they have a monopoly on the truth since they have Bibles. After all, creationists already believe that they’re right and everyone whose scientific and religious views don’t match theirs is wrong solely for having a different worldview. The details of how they assert their self-assumed correctness to the god-hating heathens of the outside world is something creationists usually tend to consider a matter of semantics…

[ illustration by Igor Chin San ]

Share
In evolution, science , , ,
permalink
  • DamianD

    These people are getting bolder by the day. Even here, in Connecticut, a typically progressive state where the creationism cry is more of a whisper, I’m seeing indications that the movement is picking up steam. On I-84, heading east through Waterbury, there is a billboard that instructs people to stop spreading the lies of Darwin and to instead teach the word of God.

    This is the last place I thought I’d see something like that, and it really bothered me to be assailed with it while driving through crappy New England winter weather. It ended up being another piece of the puzzle that is quickly forming which is inspiring me to pursue a graduate degree so I can be a teacher and ensure that children are able to respond to ideas like creationism properly.

  • a
  • Mike

    Yeah, scientists take a look and let their colleagues do the same…like the East Anglia University global warming scientists who withheld all pertinent data even after being served with freedom of information orders to release their information. The head dude actually said “They’re just going to try to disprove me”. Lol !!! Then he claimed that his desk was just such a mess that he had lost the records !!!! Scientists going into research with an agenda. But I’m sure Darwin was a Christian until he stumbled upon the athiests’ holy grail….suuuuuure…he had no agenda whatsoever. Get over yourselves and stop thinking you are as smart as God. It’s a mystery for a reason. If we knew the answers there would be no need for Faith or Hope. You’re all DEBUNKED !!!

  • Greg Fish

    … like the East Anglia University global warming scientists

    Is it just me, or do we have a perfect example of crank magnetism on our hands? I’ve already addressed the Climategate issue on this blog and fail to see how it’s related to the field of biology. Though you really don’t care about that either Mike. Your issue here is to use the perceived mistakes in one area of science to argue that science is flawed in all its pursuits in a picture perfect example of an association fallacy.

    Get over yourselves and stop thinking you are as smart as God.

    Isn’t it hilarious that the very people who say that claim to talk for God and know pretty much everything about the universe, never admitting fault even when shown wrong? We’re supposed to leave things a mystery but at the same time say that God did it to solve the mysteries in questions by excusing our ignorance with some supernatural placeholder? Methinks that less passion and more thought in your comments would make a little for less hypocrisy on your end…

    As for your comment about Darwin and the “atheist holy grail” he supposedly found, I really don’t think you know what you’re talking about. Darwin was an agnostic whose goal was to find a plausible mechanism for the budding theory of evolution. He found it. Theists seeing evolution as a threat to their dogmas is their problem, not that of an evolutionary biologist or any other scientist for that matter.

  • RaggMopp

    Gosh, gfish, Mike may be right. If you scientists can’t explain everything, then why would us laymen believe you can explain anything. You’re all DEBUNKED. Man I hate that!

    I’ve been having this fantasy that GPS, cell-phones, weather satellites, MRI’s, PET Scans and microsurgery were for real, now I’ll have to admit that they’re just scams to get my money. Oh, I just had a thought, maybe they’re technology! That’s it, technology is real, science is just a scam. NIGYYSOB.

    And I’m going to second Mike’s motion: Why don’t you scientists quit thinking that you’re as smart as God and just quit trying to explain mysteries like the Sun coming up in the morning and going down at night. You’d be a lot more comfortable in the long run. Think how much time and energy you waste on mysteries you may never solve!

  • Mike

    I know…I know…No Intelligence Allowed lol!!! How did mud spring to life? You cant answer that with any facts or reproduce it no matter how hard you try. And that’s only the First missing link in your atheist theory. How many times in history has man thought he knew something to be fact only to be proven wrong generations later? It’s very funny to see someone with such a God complex dismiss the existence of God. You only theorize and postulate, and your musings will be proven to be utter nonsense by your grandchildren or their children. Spare yourself the embarrassment and stop pretending to know things that are beyond your ability to prove. Think about why scientists with the most powerful telescopes can peer back in time ALMOST to the “Big Bang” but not quite….hrmmmm. Another missing link. Anyone who ever says science about ANYTHING is settled only shows what a self-righteous moron they are. Some things just aren’t meant for you to know. And pretending to know more than you do while preaching what you don’t really know as fact to the world through the Internet only serves to discredit you.

  • RaggMopp

    Damn, Mike, I was on your side until you started raving. What’s this atheist stuff? You don’t have to be an atheist to be biologist. There’s lots of devoutly Christian evolutionary biologists with PhD’s from very prestigious institutions. Evolution is not innately atheistic any more than quantum physics. Well, let me qualify that: Unless, of course, you demand the fundementalist position of the “Young Earth” creationists as a minimum qualification for entrance into your exclusive club.

  • DamianD

    “Anyone who ever says science about ANYTHING is settled only shows what a self-righteous moron they are. Some things just aren’t meant for you to know. And pretending to know more than you do while preaching what you don’t really know as fact to the world through the Internet only serves to discredit you.”

    That’s funny, because that’s exactly what you’re doing. You claim that we aren’t meant to know certain things. Says who? How do you know that? Besides, this isn’t about absolute truth, which is what you’re talking about. It’s about tested, and retested data that has stood up to countless amounts of peer review. A fact, as far as any human being can understand the term, is exactly that. It’s something we’ve observed empirically, tested, retested and continued to retest until there is adequate data to prove that original observation (or, in some cases… most actually, enough to disprove it).

    You say we’ve “known” things in the past that have been proven wrong. Do you know how we prove them wrong? With the scientific method. And how many of those things that you reference were determined through use of the scientific method? We knew that the Earth was flat at one point. That wasn’t tested and retested and peer reviewed, though. It was an assumption that made sense, so people accepted it. We knew that the sun revolved around the Earth. Another assumption made without testing. Once we had the means to test both of those assumptions, we proved them wrong and learned what the facts were.

    And the problem atheists have, as well as scientists who aren’t atheists, is that theists encroach on science. We, as scientists don’t go out of our way to invade churches or homes to try and disprove the existence of God. We simply retaliate when religious individuals or groups try to push non-scientific ideas into classrooms or political arenas or other areas where they don’t belong.

    As for your pointing to the hypothesis of abiogensis or the big bang… not knowing all of the answers does not mean we don’t know any of them. And while some things may be beyond our ability to prove right now, that won’t always be so. There was a time when it was impossible for us to know whether the sun revolved around the Earth or the Earth revolved around the sun. As science developed and we improved our ability to learn, observe and understand the universe around us, it suddenly became something we were able to prove.

    That’s what science is about… evolving our ability to understand what is happening around us and how it is happening. One day, we may know how life started. One day, we may know how the universe began. It takes time to get there, though.

    And as RaggMopp pointed out, every advance we’ve ever had is due to the scientific method and the fact that it works. Without it, you wouldn’t be here trying to devolve our understanding of the universe in favor of a book written by dozens of people, edited by hundreds or perhaps thousands of people, translated into dozens of languages and over 450 current versions. But hey, some people believe it’s the word of a higher power, so I guess we should abandon the approach that is directly responsible for every medical, technological or scientific advancement we’ve ever had.

    You should take the first step and stop using anything that was developed using the scientific method. Seriously, stop using the internet, stop using your air conditioning or heat, stop eating any food that has been processed in any way or drinking anything that isn’t fresh water from a natural stream or lake. Don’t use your cell phone, don’t watch TV or listen to the radio… just go outside and hope you don’t starve, freeze to death or get eaten by something larger than you. Obviously the scientific method doesn’t work, so how can you rely on anything that it has produced?

  • Mike

    “And while some things may be beyond our ability to prove right now, that won’t always be so”.

    This is exactly what I’m talking about. And I never said that nothing developed scientifically benefits mankind…or myself. I was admonished earlier in this blog for equating the “Global Warming” fraud with biology. Now the argument towards me moves from biology back to scientific inventions and breakthroughs that have nothing to do with biology…the topic which I was instructed to adhere to.

    So lets stay on topic here. Darwinism is and will be proven to be just as much of a fraud as man made global warming has already proven to be…hence the adjusted catch phrase “Climate Change”. So if the beginning can’t be proven then you can’t just skip that part and start your theory of natural selection mid-stream. That would be like Al Gore inventing the internet before computers existed.

    You are so threatened by someone mentioning God, or non scientific ideas in “areas where they don’t belong”. But God is just as proven as Darwinism. I guess you DO have religion, but it’s not in a higher power…it’s a narcissistic belief that there can’t be a being smarter than you. It’s ok to spew your hatred of all things concerning intelligent design while at the same time not being able to prove your own theories of life’s beginning because, as you say…your ability to prove this “won’t always be so”.

    Well why don’t you stick to what you can prove if that’s the parameters you would impose on creationists, and get Darwin’s religion out of the classroom as well. Why don’t we just teach that no one really knows or can prove how life began and not impose ours…or your unproven beliefs on the malleable minds of our children? Or give them Both and let them choose for themselves. Why would you seek to create mindless automatons?

    The bottom line is you cant prove a damn thing yet you want to impose your brainwashing upon others. It’s nothing more than the blind leading the blind…with the pied piper Darwin leading you all to drown in the “rising sea levels” created by the “melting Himalayan glaciers” with the rats lmao !!!!

  • Greg Fish

    you cant prove a damn thing yet you want to impose your brainwashing upon others.

    Tell me Mike, do you project much? Because the one thing I didn’t see in any of your ranting was anything resembling actual evidence for your position other than a proof by assertion here and there, mixed with a hefty dose of the crank magnetism which was mentioned in my previous reply. You were just throwing out the same platitudes millions of others like you have been throwing out for the last century without an iota of understanding of what science actually is, simply projecting your logical follies on others, livening it up with a batch of equally ignorant climate denialism.

    And it’s with the kind of conviction and empty rhetoric you demonstrate, creationists want to barge into science classes and impose their religion on students who were just learning about genetics, fossils and the basics of zoology because while you’re chastising others for being intolerant of others’ ideas, you just can’t let good science stand when it contradicts your personal beliefs and must either silence anyone who disagrees, or force others to listen to you instead.

    You are so threatened by someone mentioning God, or non scientific ideas in “areas where they don’t belong”

    Says someone who goes on an anti-science fit when someone points out the flaws of creationists trying to prove their beliefs with pseudoscience. Ironic, isn’t it? There’s a reason why non-scientific ideas don’t belong in science and in all your foaming at the mouth, you said exactly why they don’t. They’re not scientific. Do papers on black hole physics belong in a church? No. Why? Because they’re not religious ideas and not in proper context for the matter being discussed.

    But while I don’t go to religious blogs and scoff at its readers for not discussing new scientific discoveries, the faithful come to me to tell me how I’m an ignorant fool who must repent for his sinful ways, and you seem to be continuing the fine tradition. Oh and the constant self-congratulatory tone is incredibly grating. Really. You’ve wasted a whole lot of time pontificating and recycling old theist arguments and managed to contribute nothing of value to the discussion, yet you act so high and mighty. But then again I suppose you just wanted to feel like you showed up those evil atheist science types and can’t resist patting yourself on the back…

  • DamianD

    Mike, if you want to fight the Theory of Evolution, you may want to pick up a basic biology text book some time and actually read about it a little. Your posting here demonstrates that you have no idea what evolution is about. Evolution doesn’t tell us how life began. It is simply an explanation of how life changes. The origins of life on Earth is a study called abiogenesis, and evolution has no direct tie to it or need for it to be proven in order to stand on its own. And it has stood on its own just fine, facing 150 years of peer review without ever slipping.

    It is proven, as much as anything else in science. And that’s why I brought up the use of modern technology. The technology in your cell phone or home’s heating system has gone through less peer review than evolution. By that standard, it is less proven and yet you still rely on it. The combination of random mutation and natural selection is something we can observe in nature, God isn’t. Therefore, evolution belongs in science classrooms and God does not.

    All the ranting and raving in the world won’t change that.

  • Mike

    to Damien: nice cool, calm explanation…thanks. But you’re wrong. While its true the study of the origin of life on Earth is called abiogenesis, evolution had to start somewhere. So supposedly it started from these single celled organisms that sprang up magically from the mud or the ocean. Problem is there’s just no explanation that proves this and no one can seem to duplicate it no matter how hard they try.

    to gfish: duuude…take a chill pill !! You say I’M ranting, but you speak as if you’d like to squash the dissent right out of me lol !! No need for angry tirades (well I guess it IS your blog). You’re just a classic liberal who seeks to silence all opposing views. I’m surprised you didn’t call my words Hate Speech. And if I managed to contribute nothing of value then why do you feel the need to respond wrathfully whenever I post?

    And I don’t act high and mighty…I act as if God is high and mighty, and that offends you horribly lol. Not sure I’ve ever heard someone sound so offended by the mere mention that you COULD be wrong. You have no plausible or provable explanation for how life began, so its no wonder you don’t even mention it in any of your replies. Only Damien addressed the issues I brought up…you just rant and rave, and it’s YOU that acts high and mighty.

    Your problem is you can’t see the forest for the trees. You have to back up a little to see the whole picture. People that think they know it all tend to be poor listeners and even worse students.

    So let me educate you a little. First problem with theory of evolution: No partially evolved species have ever been found. There are no transitional creatures. Second problem: Tell me how partially evolved species could survive and reproduce while all their organs are in a state of flux. Third problem: Mutations don’t create new species. this has been proven with bacteria and fruit flies. They only modify the species, and if you wanna say the changes occurred really slowly from many mutations then see problem number one. Problem number four: Life only comes from life. Chemicals don’t mix together and form life. Ever.

    I’m sure you have canned responses to all these problems with the evolutionary theory, but you can’t prove evolution any more than I can prove the existence of God. And there is huge disagreement from scientists about this theory. Just google A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. There is no TRUE consensus among scientists on this issue.

    Ok… go ahead and get your rant on gfish :)

  • Greg Fish

    You’re just a classic liberal who seeks to silence all opposing views.

    Yes. That’s exactly why I’m letting you post whatever you want, whenever you want. It’s just how liberal free speech haters like me roll.

    if I managed to contribute nothing of value then why do you feel the need to respond wrathfully whenever I post?

    Because you don’t seem to be aware of the fact that you haven’t been able to provide a single bit of evidence for your claims. Actually, you don’t really make claims. You’re just stating things and act bewildered that we’re not taking you on your word.

    I act as if God is high and mighty, and that offends you horribly lol.

    No, you don’t get to shield your ignorance of what you ridicule with your religion. Try again, this time with actual proof for what you’re trying to say. Though based on your debate strategy of “I’m right, you’re wrong,” I don’t see that happening.

    People that think they know it all tend to be poor listeners and even worse students.

    The irony here is so thick, you can cut it with a knife. Same goes for your suggestion for a chill pill. Really, a little self-awareness would go a long way.

    So let me educate you a little.

    Oh this will be good. I always like to be educated by people whose greatest ability in debates is to throw out random nonsense.

    No partially evolved species have ever been found.

    And we also haven’t found ghosts. Or walking skeletons. Maybe you’d like to look up what the word evolution means before you let loose with something this outright and demonstrably stupid? Partially evolved species is meaningless babble which shows that you have no idea what you’re talking about. Evolution is an ongoing process. You do not get a partially evolved creature because that’s exactly what the modern theory of evolution predicts will never happen. If there were “partially evolved creatures” out in the wild, that would actually be a huge blow to the theory.

    There are no transitional creatures.

    So wait, all the world’s museums filled to the brim with transitional fossils are just a big lie perpetuated by the evil Darwinist lobby? Now it all makes sense…

    Mutations don’t create new species this has been proven with bacteria and fruit flies.

    Would you also like to tell me that the sky is actually purple? Now tell me, do you lie about the laboratory findings dealing with genetics because you have some sort of a personal agenda or just because you’re just a loudmouthed ignoramus? Show me the links to the actual studies proving you’re right, otherwise you’re just full of it.

    Chemicals don’t mix together and form life. Ever.

    Gee, I’m glad you told us. By the way, when did you receive your PhD in chemistry? I also wanted to know then you published your conclusive studies on the subject and were awarded the Nobel Prize for figuring out the issue of abiogenesis? But that’s a formality of course. You made a categorical statement on the internet and as we all know, that’s all it takes to settle any scientific line of study. Forever. And ever.

    And there is huge disagreement from scientists about this theory.

    Load. Of. Crap. This is a lie and a very bad one. Citing an old, widely discredited and intentionally vague political gambit from an anti-science think tank in Seattle doesn’t help your case. In fact, it only further shows that you have no idea what you’re talking about. Every argument you’ve used is total and absolute nonsense which shows the kind of abject ignorance that should’ve been cleared up for you in eighth grade. Then again, you seem to be providing proof that middle school biology in Texas might use some serious tuning up…

    I’m sure you have canned responses to all these problems…

    Try using something other than canned fallacies and I’ll be more than happy to start an in-depth discussion. It’s awfully hard to be original when all you have to deal with are the same old, tired anti-scientific clichés.

  • DamianD

    Mike, your claim that no one has ever been able to make any headway in understanding how organic materials may have come from inorganic matter is incorrect. The Miller-Urey experiment from 1952 was able to do this in controlled lab conditions.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

    In fact, a reexamination of the experiment in 2008 discovered that there were more amino acids than Miller and Urey had been able to detect at the time of the original experiment. This doesn’t answer the question conclusively, but it did prove that it was possible for inorganic material to produce amino acids under the right conditions.

    And again, no, evolution does not need this to be proven to hold up as a scientific theory. Evolution only describes how life changes and thus it only needs to stand up to scrutiny on that particular front to remain a proven theory. Abiogenesis is a different hypothesis and it’s ability to stand up to scrutiny has nothing to do with evolution. If you want to argue that you think an all powerful creator is necessary for us to be here because abiogenesis has not stood up to the kind of scrutiny gravity and evolution have, go right ahead. I’m not going to sit here and try to convince you that it’s incontrovertible science. I don’t agree that an intelligent designer was necessary, but I won’t defend abiogenesis the way I defend evolution. I happen to think that while we may not have all the answers right now, we will continue to find them as we continue to observe, experiment and share our data.

  • Mike

    Ok gfish, you’ve now resorted to name-calling as all libs do when someone doesn’t agree with them. You’ve called me stupid, ignorant, loud mouthed and a liar. Also you’ve disclosed my home state which further demonstrates how utterly unprofessional you are and that you have no business running a blog.

    I would recommend to any one who reads this blog to boycott any thing gfish has on the internet because of his amateurish and childish responses and for violating the privacy agreement he has on this blog.

    Now you need to disclose your own home state and stop being a cowardly piece of garbage. Put down the bag of doritos, get out of your mom’s basement, cut your inch long blackened fingernails, throw away the underwear you haven’t changed in three weeks, take a freakin shower, and GET A JOB !!! The poor woman who should’ve done what I’m sure you advocate (abortion) when she got knocked up by a stranger in 1984 needs a break !!!

    If you wish to meet me that can be arranged. You have my e-mail address. Bitch.

  • Mike

    Damien…again a thoughtful and professional post…but proteins from amino acids don’t combine with DNA unless through a living entity or unless manipulated in a lab by a person.

    In the miller/urey experiment they also used ammonia… not just hydrogen, methane, and water. And all evidence from rock formations that scientists agree were around before life began shows no evidence of the kind of atmosphere they created in their tests. What they did was load the test with all the atoms necessary to form these amino acids.

    I’m glad we can agree to disagree civilly. Too bad this blog’s originator is a whack job. I probably won’t be posting here any more, but I do appreciate your responses and the manner in which you gave them. Peace bro.

  • DamianD

    Mike,

    As I said, the experiment doesn’t close the book on the question. All it does is prove that organic material can be created with inorganic material. We haven’t discovered the exact combination and conditions that led to life on this planet, but it is possible for inorganic matter to produce amino acids.

    And as for your interactions with gfish, you cross every line you claim he did in your last response to him, to a much more extreme degree. gfish doesn’t pull any punches around here, but he’s usually right in what he’s saying. You came to this board with a bunch of assertions that either aren’t well supported or aren’t supported at all by any kind of accepted science.

    Instead of addressing his issues with your stance, you got into a pissing match with him and resorted to “mom’s basement” jokes. If that’s how you’re going to react to people who call you out on making claims you can’t back up, I don’t think you’re going to be missed by many around here. I tend to be a little less aggressive than gfish, but I don’t disagree with anything he’s said in this comment thread.

  • Mike

    Damien,

    Yep…I respond in kind. If you agree with gfish’s name-calling and other rude comments then I guess I gave you too much credit. Maybe you only call out my abuses and ignore those that he commits because you both believe in the same anti-creationist, atheistic, grown-from-apes religion. Or maybe you’ve just been kissing his ass for so long that you’ve acquired a taste for it!! Either way, I won’t take the shit lying down.

    FUCK OFF GFISH AND WHOEVER AGREES WITH HIS TACTICS FUCK OFF TOO!!!!!!!

  • DamianD

    Thank you for justifying my statements about you.

  • Greg Fish

    You’ve called me stupid, ignorant, loud mouthed and a liar.

    If you insist on educating me by throwing out falsehoods and compose snide tirades riddled with logical fallacies, what I’m I supposed to call you? A thoughtful gentleman well schooled in biology? Meanwhile you’ve been crying about people infringing on your freedom of speech while you’re allowed to rant however you want and whenever you want, confusing the right of others to criticize your statements for oppression.

    you’ve disclosed my home state which further demonstrates how unprofessional you are and that you have no business running a blog.

    Is there something wrong with Texas? Are you afraid that someone is going to track you down based on the fact that you live in a huge state? Maybe I shouldn’t have said that, but this is hardly personal information and your dirty laundry being outed for the world to see so it would be nice to keep this in perspective. My name is on the About page of the blog, has been since day one and my twitter feed lists my hometown. For you to accuse me of hiding isn’t exactly a statement to your diligence. And the implied threat of violence isn’t exactly a testament to your maturity.

    By the way, your response here is not at all childish and over the top. Not at all. And a huge, internet-wide boycott because of my slip is not at all evidence of a huge temper tantrum. Especially when you note that none of your personally identifying info was disclosed. You act as if your home address and social security number was posted for the world to see. But hey, that means we don’t have to talk about all the mistakes you made in your attempt to educate me so that helps you out on that front…