Or not. No joke, though, that is the actual title of a blog post hit piece against me by one of my fiercer critics, Christopher Keating, the same guy I wrote about back in my February 28, 2017 blog post here. By my count, Keating makes at least 25 basic errors in this latest piece …… or are they deceptions? Rather than write them out one-by-one in a post similar to my last dissection of his work, I’ll just call them out by highlighting them in yellow with additional mouse-over notes attached to them in this PDF file. Click on the highlighted errors in this file to keep them open, and that action will allow you to copy ‘n paste the web page urls into a browser to see the assorted screencaptures and links I refer to.
The exercise is elemental once again, to showcase the differences in style between people who base their assertions on facts as opposed to those who operate on notions of what ‘feels like the truth.’ How can a supposedly science-based issue remain alive in the long run when its supporters continually display such anti-science and arguably anti-intellectual reasoning?
[Author’s 8/10/17 update] I have this post in a category titled “Can’t make this stuff up” because I can’t make this stuff up. Christopher Keating pounded out two additional blog posts about me two days in a row, on 8/5/17 and 8/6/17. What prompted that? Since he openly admitted back in 2015 that he won’t read GelbspanFiles, it took an alert – Keating said as much – from “Dave James,” a person I described as one of ICSC’s Tom Harris’ comment stalkers (my verbatim comment on that is nicely reproduced in easier-to-read format at Keating’s 8/5 post, full text within the comment section of Harris’ GreenvilleOnline op-ed) to get Keating to read this post right here.
What prompted me to bring up the topic of comment stalkers in the first place? Tom Harris and I have been discussing it via email off and on ever since he first noticed the situation surrounding him several years ago, and more recently because of my 6/1 post about one of his stalkers glomming onto me. Since I had a couple of tallies on these people, Tom was wondering if I had anything on this “Dave James” fellow. With regard to the unmistakable appearance of this person being an active stalker, Tom wondered just how long it would take this person to arrive in the comment section at the above GreenvilleOnline op-ed. I was thinking 6 hours, but would have lost such a wager because “Dave James” showed up a mere four hours after Tom emailed me the link. Thus, I could not resist pointing out one of Christopher Keating’s 25 errors about me, followed by a Google search suggestion which would reveal just where a real pattern is to be found in this Tom Harris comment stalker situation.
Hence, the subsequent 8/5 – 8/6 meltdown posts by Keating. Considering how no less than 4 of Tom’s comment stalkers are exposed in this upvote count of Keating’s comment right at his own blog comment section, who could blame Keating for lashing out?
While I could respond with a dissection of Keating’s new pile of errors, it would be beating a dead horse to make my point about him in particular. I’ve already described Keating’s bewildering concept interpretation problems; by way of one new example, his rebuttal to my post here indicates that he literally cannot distinguish what the subtlety of putting words within quotation marks means. I kid you not (click image to enlarge):
Had Keating made any real effort to read my blog at any usable depth, he would have known full well that I’ve had my facts straight on Ross Gelbspan’s “Pulitzer winner” situation for over four years now, with an individual post category on it.
One more example to seal the deal – witness the rationale in this screencapture about what was the entire basis of a 5/3/14 blog post against me:
When pretty much any unbiased, critical thinking reader sees that my very first comment at Keating’s blog does not remotely resemble a lawsuit threat, it defies logic that any kind of objective lawyer would say it did. Therefore, it is not the least bit out of bounds to wonder whether his so-called lawyers are tax lawyers or divorce lawyers. If Keating was so dead-certain this advice he was given was bulletproof, he’d be more than happy to have them provide their analysis which would then destroy my argument.
It becomes obvious which direction this all is headed, and myself, this feels like I’m torturing helpless kittens. So, I’ll close out by saying that if any objective, unbiased reporter feels like pursuing an analysis story about the rationale of such people, I’d be more than happy to expand on this all day long, with other examples outside of this situation on Keating or any of my other critics.