I wondered whether or not to post this. Prior conversations with the author of Theology Archaeology, Silence of Mind and Tom have been fruitless. Is there any point in perpetuating them? On the other hand, for the sake of the record, and for completeness, I believe it prudent to lay out my version of recent events.
Recently, Citizen Tom decided to address the discussions between myself, him and Silence of Mind, on whether or not I edit comments.
Let’s start with this. Tom’s text is displayed in purple (by the way, if anyone has difficulty reading the text, please me know. It looks alright to me, but I can’t speak on behalf of every reader).
Why is Ben Berwick mad at me?
When Berwick called theologyarchaeology a liar, I asked for proof. When Berwick offered up a couple of posts, I asked for a specific instance. I saw difference of opinion with theologyarchaeology and perhaps some confusion, but no lies.
I’m not mad at Tom, I’m disappointed in the hypocrisy, and the manner in which Tom allowed Silence of Mind to distract him. Tom was quite happy, without evidence, to judge me, despite his claims to the contrary. He accepted Silence of Mind’s baseless and unproven allegation, and did not address how he himself had left several comments on Meerkat Musings, without any editing being made by me, of any kind. Indeed, I raised that last point more than once, and it went unanswered.
When Silence of Mind dragged into the discussion my ‘debates’ with the author of Theology Archaeology, it was clearly an effort to distract from his own dishonesty. Tom was effectively hook-winked by this, and seized upon this distraction, repeatedly pressing me for examples of David’s deceit. When examples were provided, Tom rejected them, and it would seem that is on the basis of confusion, and differences of opinion.
Since Tom is quite happy to demand I prove my claims, whilst giving Silence of Mind a free pass… well, as I have said before, that is a double-standard. Since he is quite happy to play host to Silence of Mind’s libellous/slanderous remarks, I am left with little choice but to defend myself. I wonder if Tom will request that Silence of Mind verify his claims, and I wonder if Tom will factor in his own experiences on Meerkat Musings?
On several occasions, David has misrepresented evidence, which is a form of dishonesty. In discussions on abortion rates, he has repeatedly omitted links to evidence showing that abortion decrease when abortion is legal. His post here does not contain the links and quotes from those links, a curious omission, and a deliberate one. In discussions on the responsibilities of businesses to treat customers equally, he would wilfully and deliberately misconstrue my arguments. When it came to discussions of the covid vaccine, David led a merry dance on how ‘many’ people were sick from the vaccine, but did not attempt to quantify what ‘many’ meant, and avoided addressing the facts when they were presented to him.
David frequently accuses me of ‘distorting’ what he says, but curiously enough, never backs up that claim with evidence. Sounds just like Silence of Mind, but then, birds of a feather…
From a legal standpoint, it is often difficult to prove wrongdoing. So, we generally don’t take someone to court without good reason and evidence. Since Silence of Mind had been blogging friends for years, I took his accusation against Berwick seriously. However, I allowed Berwick to defend himself. Silence of Mind had not offered any clear evidence, and Berwick had a right to ask for it. Silence of Mind came back with an ambiguous response. Unfortunately, instead of pointing to the weakness of Silence of Mind‘s evidence, Berwick either panicked or lost his temper. He accused theologyarchaeology of lying.
I repeatedly pointed out that Silence of Mind provided no evidence to support his claims. Tom ignored this. He did not seem to care that Silence of Mind was making spurious, misleading, baseless claims, using Tom’s site to play host to lies. Nor did he object to the smokescreen Silence of Mind threw up to distract from his dishonesty.
Another issue within all of this is that Silence of Mind does not understand the difference between blocking someone and editing comments. Nor does he understand what censorship is:
TA, Here is a comment from Ben Berwick, March 18, 2023, False Accusations P3; he is addressing a critic named David:
“I thought I’d approve this comment, because it is wonderfully ironic. I wonder if ‘David’ appreciates that irony. He who abandoned his responsibilities should not lecture others on being a man.”
So there we have Ben demonstrating that he censors comments he doesn’t like. Censoring is a form of lying and edits comments out of existence.
I stand by my own eye witness of Ben actually changing words (editing) in some of my comments. Atheists will do anything to rig arguments so that they win because they do not have the good character or intellectual capacity to grapple with objective truth.
Censorship would entail silencing people who I don’t agree with. If that were the case, neither Silence of Mind or Tom would never have been able to post comments on my site at all, and wouldn’t be able to post anything to their sites either. Censorship would involve stripping them of a voice via as many avenues as possible, which is obviously a power I lack, and not one I would exercise anyway. Note that the author of Theology Archaeology does not allow comments at all, and in the past, has openly edited comments. You can see what he omitted here.
I don’t need to edit Silence of Mind’s comments. His powers of deduction and reason are sorely lacking. On the other hand, he has deleted comments from his own blog (follow the comment train, and you’ll Silence of Mind responds to me several times, but my comments aren’t there), which goes to show how duplicitous he is.
I have every right to block people who are unreasonable, irrational, rude and insulting. Dishonesty is, in my view, a form of being unreasonable. It is disrespectful to the reader, and to me. My tolerance for lies about me is low. Silence of Mind, if you happen to read this, and you still want to have your ban reversed, that will only happen with a complete, unreserved apology for your deception. Should you wish to archive any post you comment on, I’m sure you can handle using the Wayback Machine, or you can save a copy of my post (then there’s the old-fashioned technique of taking a photo of the screen). I have no problem with you doing any or all of that. If I am indeed editing comments, it will soon become clear, and I won’t have a leg to stand on. I wonder if you will accept those terms, or if you will weasel away, in your current, cowardly fashion?
I aim for this to be my final post on this subject. I am tired of dealing with the dishonesty, and of having to defend myself from misleading allegations. Dealing with characters like the author of Theology Archaeology and Silence of Mind is a poisonous exercise, not to mention a futile one. I do not like the side of me that they bring out. Neither character is prepared to be reasonable, and I cannot continue to let them infect my soul with their behaviour.