Pages

Saturday, August 01, 2009

Running the numbers

Since the STR moderators have now closed the thread where Jason was responding to Jon Curry, I’ll post my final comments.

Before doing so I think it’s useful to draw attention to a bit of autobiographical data which Jon shared about himself a while back. In arguing with Jason, Jon likes to spout verbiage about Bayesian probability theory. That makes his objections sound oh-so sophisticated–not that Jon ever gets around to presenting anything like a formal Bayesian argument for his position. He contents himself with intoning Bayesian buzzwords.

But here, by his own admission, is the junkie stuff he read which actually led to his apostasy:

“I read Richard Carrier, Farrell Till, Dan Barker. I still wasn't buying books by the way. Just the free stuff so I am prepared to refute it.”

http://www.freeratio.org//showthread.php?p=3463342

Moving along:

"Let's consider an example. Suppose the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community approaches you and informs you that the promised Messiah, Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, had come to earth and had in fact risen from the dead in confirmation of his salvific claims. We start by considering this claim without reference to the evidence in favor of it. Forget about whether his followers were willing to die for him, whether the reports were eyewitness and early and so forth. Considering this claim based upon background knowledge alone, such as the frequency with which God engages in this type of an action and the fact that this type of claim has been falsely made in the past and the fact that most people that die stay dead I start with a strong presumption that the claim is false. You however would disagree. There is nothing initially implausible about this claim in your view. We accept claims such as a claim that a person is getting married. We should similarly be prepared to accept this claim. After all, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is not claiming that the Messiah rose naturally. They're saying God raised him. So this is quite plausible in your world."

Two basic problems. He mentions background knowledge, but omits to mention two key elements thereof:

i) He says Ahmad is their "promised" messiah. Okay, let's see the promises. When were the promises made? How are the terms of fulfillment specified?

ii) Another piece of background information which he omits is the fact that Islam is not a viable contender. Muhammad already knocked himself out of the running. He predicated his prophetic credentials on the claim that his message was merely a confirmation of former Biblical revelation. And he told doubters to consult the People of the Book (i.e. Christians and Jews). Hence, he falsified his prophetic claims by his own standards.

Therefore, we can safely discount every other Muslim qua Muslim claim.

"I likewise don't know of anyone that has reliable knowledge that this has happened."

Meaning the NT reports are unreliable. Where's the supporting argument?

"You can group the facts in different ways. I'm grouping the gospels as a whole as the evidence in favor of the resurrection claim."

It goes beyond the gospels. Other NT authors, all writing after the Crucifixion, assume that Jesus is alive at the time of writing. They aren't preaching a dead Savior.

"One way to attempt to show that would be to run the numbers."

The numbers are no better than the assumptions feeding into the equation.

"You're missing my point. The point is not that a claim can be false in a religious context. It's that all such claims that I know of, whether true or false, are set in a religious context. You seem to think that because it's in a religious context this makes it more initially plausible. How is that the case when they are always set in a religious context, whether true or false?"

Many paranormal claims are not set in a religious context.

"I don't have to provide a precise definition to distinguish an outrageous claim from a non-outrageous claim, just like I don't have to tell you exactly when stubble becomes a beard."

How can he "run the numbers" if he can't define his terms? If he can't define his terms, then how can he quantify his terms?

"That's right. We know that apples do fall from tress. We know that humans do catch things that fall."

We've also seen unsupported objects that don't fall. We've seen astronauts in orbit around the earth floating above the floor of their space ship. All those NASA shots of astronauts.

"Or suppose you didn't witness the earthquake. Your wife runs to you and tells you that the cave has crashed down because the earth moved. You might not believe her until you see it yourself. That's perfectly rational based upon the initial implausibility (from your subjective perspective)."

Reasonable, but utterly erroneous. What’s the advantage of being “reasonable” (as he defines it) if your reasonable beliefs are just as erroneous as unreasonable beliefs?

"We all act this way with so many claims, like claims about others rising from the dead or other claimed supernatural events that we hear about from devoted followers that it's rational to react the same way to Jesus' claim."

That's a damning admission of his own provinciality. I don't automatically rule out supernatural claims outside my own theological tradition. I don't discount all Catholic miracles, per se, or witchcraft, &c.

Moreover, there are respected researchers in the field of the paranormal (e.g. Braude, Sheldrake) who don't suffer from this knee-jerk reaction.

"Yeah, I do see it like 600°C water and apparently to you it's not even implausible when you consider it before even looking to the evidence. It isn't at all surprising that you find the evidence persuasive. For you there is very little initial implausibility to overcome."

That's because plausibility is indexed to one's worldview. Moreover, even if one didn't come to the question from a Christian standpoint, there's no good reason to be as dogmatic as Jon Curry about what's possible or impossible. Curry is not really an observer of reality. For him, it's not a question of discovering what's possible. He's already made up his mind. It isn't based on the evidence–since he automatically discounts any evidence to the contrary.

"I've talked before about how you seem oblivious to your own biases."

Of course, it's folks like Curry, so oblivious to their own blinding bias, who accuse others of blinding bias.

"Here you're also telling us that you don't regard the resurrection claim as initially implausible based upon our background knowledge. I doubt any skeptic here would think that your opinion that these things have "little significance" matters much."

Notice how consistently one-sided he is, as if skepticism is should set the standard of comparison.

"You seem to suggest it as if we know that Jesus predicted his death and resurrection, but we do not know this. This is part of what is in dispute. It's not background knowledge."

It's not background knowledge to whom? To the Christian or to the skeptic?

“In my world since miracles are even more initially implausible then murders better evidence is required to establish them."

His world? Of course, many inhabitants of this world lay claim to experiences which he dismisses out of hand. What about their world?

“Get a dictionary if you don't know what words mean. These are common words used in an ordinary sense. Anybody attempting to understand me knows what I'm talking about.”

Curry is the one who keeps talking about “running the numbers.” But the ordinary sense of common words hardly furnishes the precision necessary to quantify the odds.

22 comments:

  1. You guys keep commenting on this Jon Curry fellow. Is he allowed to comment here in response?

    ReplyDelete
  2. He has his own blog where he's free to respond to his heart's content.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So, the answer it no. Well, that hardly seems sporting, old boy. But, not a surprise.

    ReplyDelete
  4. David,

    I don’t know how familiar you are with the background to these discussions. Steve is primarily responding to what Jon Curry wrote at the Stand To Reason blog. They have their own policies, and they sometimes delete people’s posts, or portions of them, and they apparently close threads once a particular amount of time has passed. The thread Steve is responding to is now closed. Nobody can post there. That site isn’t run by us, nor is it run by Jon Curry.

    Shortly before the thread at Stand To Reason was closed, Jon posted some comments about it at his blog. And we’ve commented on the discussion here. Thus, there are a few places where the three of us and others involved have commented on the issues under discussion.

    Whether it makes sense for us to post a response to Jon here depends on the context, such as what we want to achieve with that response. Jon was banned from Triablogue about two years ago, before the current discussion began. Whether he’s allowed to post at Triablogue involves more issues than whether a reader like you wants him to be able to respond to us here. If we banned somebody who was spamming advertisements across our blog, it wouldn’t make sense for a reader of the blog to later complain that the spammer can’t reply to us when we write posts against spamming. The fact that a reader would like for the spammer to be able to post responses to us here doesn’t overturn our reasons for having banned him. Objecting “that hardly seems sporting, old boy”, without any further explanation, wouldn’t be a reasonable response. If you want us to believe that we need to be “sporting” by allowing people to post here who have been banned for reasons that predate the current discussion, then you should explain why. Stating your opinion doesn’t give us any reason to agree with it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. DAVID SAID:

    "So, the answer it no. Well, that hardly seems sporting, old boy. But, not a surprise."

    Seems like a diversionary tactic on your part, ol' boy. You can't deal with the arguments, so you'd rather debate a pseudo-issue as a decoy. No surprise.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Shortly before the thread at Stand To Reason was closed, Jon posted some comments about it at his blog. And we’ve commented on the discussion here."

    Well, that does make it sound that Jon started it, doesn't it?

    But I used your handy-dandy search engine and found that you all had posted three anti-Curry posts before Jon put up the post that you are referring to. You were posting anti-Curry material long before the Stand to Reason thread closed.

    During the month that the Stand to Reason thread was open, did Steve take advantage of the opportunity provided by a neutral site when that opportunity was handed to him? No. I guess he didn't like the idea of discussing issues in a location where a grown-up was in change of the moderating duties.

    The total posts over the last month now stands at five. Five posts about one guy. Seems a bit excessive to me, especially when he's not allowed to respond, but it's your sandbox, right?

    "If we banned somebody who was spamming advertisements across our blog, it wouldn’t make sense for a reader of the blog to later complain that the spammer can’t reply to us when we write posts against spamming."

    Is this what Jon Curry did?

    ReplyDelete
  7. "You can't deal with the arguments."

    Isn't the basic argument over whether Jesus is God? If you believe that Jesus is God, why don't you act like you believe that his instructions to us humans are something to be followed?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Go write your own blog, David. Then I'll go over to it and reproduce your and Jon's behavior and see how long I last.

    ReplyDelete
  9. DAVID SAID:

    “No. I guess he didn't like the idea of discussing issues in a location where a grown-up was in change of the moderating duties.”

    Do you apply that same characterization to all the stuff which Jon Curry has posted on his own blog? Who is moderating his blog posts?

    BTW, what “grown-up” is moderating your own statements? Who is the designated “grown-up” in your life, David? Feel free to post the contact info so that we can report your activities to the official “grown-up” who supervises you in case you need to be grounded for speaking ill of your elders and betters.

    Does he (she?) give you a weekly allowance? What’s your curfew? Does he tuck you in bed?

    “Five posts about one guy. Seems a bit excessive to me.”

    So you don’t think his arguments merit that much attention. You may be right about that, although I doubt Jon would share your low opinion of his contributions.

    “Especially when he's not allowed to respond, but it's your sandbox, right?”

    He has his sandbox, and we have ours. Sounds sporting to me.

    “If you believe that Jesus is God, why don't you act like you believe that his instructions to us humans are something to be followed?”

    As in what?

    And I notice that you continue to engage in diversionary tactics. Can’t deal with the arguments, can you?

    ReplyDelete
  10. David has written a few posts in this thread now, and, as Steve points out, he hasn’t used any of those posts to address the larger issues involved in this discussion. He writes:

    “Well, that does make it sound that Jon started it, doesn't it?”

    Only if you read an assumption into my comments that I didn’t have in mind or imply. You’ve responded as if the second sentence you quoted from me began with “Then” rather than “And”. Why?

    You write:

    “During the month that the Stand to Reason thread was open, did Steve take advantage of the opportunity provided by a neutral site when that opportunity was handed to him?”

    As I said earlier, whether it makes sense to post in one location rather than another depends on the context, such as what the poster wants to accomplish. You keep assuming a particular context in which Steve should have been posting. You make no argument for that context. You just assume it.

    Stand To Reason has its own policies. It’s not “neutral” on all of the relevant issues. That might be part of the reason why Jon chose to post his recent article at his blog rather than at Stand To Reason. He may have thought that Stand To Reason might delete his post, since it contains personal criticism of me. If he wanted to personally criticize me, as he obviously did, then it would make more sense to do it at his own blog. Similarly, if Steve wants to criticize Jon on the basis of his reliance on sources like Farrell Till and Dan Barker, for example, it would make more sense to do so here than at Stand To Reason. Or if posting here rather than at Stand To Reason makes more sense because of Steve’s time constraints in a given context, then he might post here and not there for that reason. Etc.

    Where’s your argument that Steve made the wrong decision given his context?

    You write:

    “The total posts over the last month now stands at five. Five posts about one guy. Seems a bit excessive to me, especially when he's not allowed to respond, but it's your sandbox, right?”

    Where’s your argument that the number of posts is excessive? You keep telling us what you think without giving us any reason to agree with your assessment of things.

    We don’t decide on our number of posts responding to a person on the basis that he’s “one guy”. If one person raises twenty subjects worth addressing on this blog, then twenty posts can be justified. The fact that he’s “one guy” doesn’t suggest that the number of posts is inappropriate.

    Concerning whether Jon is “allowed” to respond, he has his own blog and many other forums where he can post. And I’ve repeatedly linked to his blog, so that people can go there if they want. We have reasons for not allowing him here that predate the current discussion. But we tell people where they can find his own blog and other forums where he posts. Why do you think it’s so important that he be allowed to post here? Nobody’s stopping people from reading Jon’s blog or other forums where he posts. To the contrary, my linking to his blog makes it easier for people to do so. Some bloggers don’t even provide links to their opponents. Given that we have reasons for banning Jon here, what more do you want us to do, beyond linking to his blog and other relevant forums?

    You write:

    “Is this what Jon Curry did?”

    No, and I didn’t suggest it is. Why would you ask? I was making a larger point, namely that we can have good reasons for maintaining a ban, even if we’re writing about that banned person or about a subject he might want to comment on and even if a reader would prefer that the banned person be allowed to post. Why would you ignore my larger point and ask whether Jon Curry was banned for spamming advertisements?

    He was banned along with two other people in 2007, for reasons similar to their banning. See here.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You guys are funny! The Bible is inerrant, but does not have to be obeyed. And Jesus said unto them, "If others are not perfect, then you can behave as you wish". You're so eager to pound on anyone that disagrees with you that you're blind to the logs in your eyes.

    In all seriousness, you should check out STR more often; those guys know how to run a forum for discussion. Consequently, they seem to get far more comments per post, and I'm guessing that they get more traffic, too.

    By the way, if there's a specific argument you want me to address, lay it out there and I'll think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. David wrote:

    “You guys are funny! The Bible is inerrant, but does not have to be obeyed. And Jesus said unto them, ‘If others are not perfect, then you can behave as you wish’. You're so eager to pound on anyone that disagrees with you that you're blind to the logs in your eyes.”

    You’re ignoring most of what we’ve written in response to you, you’re mischaracterizing what we believe, and you’re making accusations that you don’t even attempt to support. If you were as easily offended as you pretend to be, I doubt that your posts would be as antagonistic as they are. If my responses to you are to be characterized as “pounding”, then how should we characterize your comments about how “funny”, “blind”, etc. your opponents are?

    You write:

    “In all seriousness, you should check out STR more often; those guys know how to run a forum for discussion. Consequently, they seem to get far more comments per post, and I'm guessing that they get more traffic, too.”

    Web traffic can be determined by a large variety of factors. Stand To Reason does a lot of good work, and their traffic surely is partially a result of the quality of that work. But other factors are involved. I doubt that you’d want to argue that the most popular sites on the web are the best. Popularity isn’t always a reflection of quality.

    Different approaches have different advantages and disadvantages. It’s in your interest, in this context, to point to what you consider the advantages of Stand To Reason’s approach while ignoring or underestimating the disadvantages. I don’t consider a non-Christian as unreasonable as you are to be the best judge of these matters. Your claim to desire a better “forum for discussion” rings hollow when you refer to your opponents as “funny”, “blind”, etc., repeatedly ignore your opponents’ counterarguments, and keep ignoring the larger issues involved while focusing on smaller issues. If Stand To Reason won’t allow me to make negative personal comments as mild as my comments there were, do you think they’d allow me to refer to my opponents as “funny”, “blind”, etc., if they were to be consistent?

    You write:

    “By the way, if there's a specific argument you want me to address, lay it out there and I'll think about it.”

    We weren’t wanting you to comment on anything. But if you want to comment, you can consult the original post in the thread to see what larger issues are relevant, as opposed to the smaller issues you keep focusing on.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'll give David one more chance to offer a substantive comment on what I wrote.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "I'll give David one more chance to offer a substantive comment on what I wrote."

    So, this means that I can't respond to what Jason wrote? Just wondering what the rules are in the sandbox.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The rules of the sandbox are that you offer substantive comments, not diversionary comments. Last chance.

    ReplyDelete
  16. So, I'm not allowed to respond to Jason. Guess I hit a nerve with the STR thing. Anyway...

    Since the comments of Jon Curry are not my comments, and I don't always know what he's trying to say, I'll pass on most of your comments in response to his comments.

    However, I am curious about a couple of things.

    Jon: "That's right. We know that apples do fall from tress. We know that humans do catch things that fall."

    Steve: We've also seen unsupported objects that don't fall. We've seen astronauts in orbit around the earth floating above the floor of their space ship. All those NASA shots of astronauts.

    Perhaps I'm not following this, given that I'm only looking at part of what Jon said, but I'm not sure I see the relevance of your response. There nothing miraculous about objects floating in orbiting space craft. This is consisent with our understanding of how the natural world works. I believe that Jon is making a distinction between "ordinary events" that are consistent with the natural world and miracles which are not. Objects floating in orbit are not miraculous.

    ----

    Jon: “In my world since miracles are even more initially implausible then murders better evidence is required to establish them."

    Steve: His world? Of course, many inhabitants of this world lay claim to experiences which he dismisses out of hand. What about their world?

    I don't follow. Is there a world in which dead men walking is as initially plausible as murder?

    ----

    Steve: Meaning the NT reports are unreliable. Where's the supporting argument?

    The report that 500 people saw the physical body of Jesus after his execution is unreliable. Such an event would have triggered the mother of all reactions in the Jerusalem of AD 30. No reaction happened; 500 people did not see a dead guy.

    Also, can an historical document be reliable in some of its claims and unreliable in others? It seems to me that there are many examples where we accept the non-miraculous parts of an historical account while simultaneously accepting the ordinary bits.

    ------

    Steve: I don't automatically rule out supernatural claims outside my own theological tradition. I don't discount all Catholic miracles, per se, or witchcraft, &c.

    So, what are the criteria for accepting supernatural claims of others? What are the rules? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I really want to know.

    -----------

    Steve: That's because plausibility is indexed to one's worldview.

    But isn't that true about you as well? So, who determines what is "plausible" and what is not? Why isn't Jon's view of plausibility as good as yours? Jon thinks dead men walking are implausible, and you don't. Well, it's a matter of opinion, isn't it?

    ------------

    Steve: Of course, it's folks like Curry, so oblivious to their own blinding bias, who accuse others of blinding bias.

    Don't we all have our blinding biases? (Yes, I mean myself as well.)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Let me modify one my sentences a bit.

    Instead of...

    Jon thinks dead men walking are implausible, and you don't.

    Let's say...

    Jon thinks dead men walking is very, very implausible while you think it's just implausible. (I'm guessing that this is a more accurate assessment of your views, but you will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong.)

    ReplyDelete
  18. Oops.

    Change...

    It seems to me that there are many examples where we accept the non-miraculous parts of an historical account while simultaneously accepting the ordinary bits.

    To...

    It seems to me that there are many examples where we accept the non-miraculous parts of an historical account while simultaneously rejecting the supernatural bits.

    ReplyDelete
  19. David,

    Before you post anything else in any thread here, there's an issue you need to address. You wrote:

    "The report that 500 people saw the physical body of Jesus after his execution is unreliable. Such an event would have triggered the mother of all reactions in the Jerusalem of AD 30. No reaction happened; 500 people did not see a dead guy."

    That comment is similar to what Joe said in the Stand To Reason thread. For example, Joe commented:

    "Do you really believe that an post-execution resurrected man can be seen by 500 people in Jerusalem without this having an immediate and profound effect on the Roman Empire?...I say that you can’t show a risen dead man to 500 people without the place blowing sky high"

    Are you the person who posted under the screen name of Joe at Stand To Reason? That would explain why Joe put his name in quotation marks ("Joe") on Jon Curry's blog. It would also explain why he referred to his "encounters with Triabloguers" and his "science background". You took an earlier thread here off topic in an attempt to discuss whether Adam existed. Is that a discussion in which you used your "science background" to judge "encounters with Triabloguers"? Here are some of "Joe's" comments at Stand To Reason:

    "I see that over at Triablogue, the boys have three posts on you for just this week alone, and just on this comment thread alone. Of course, being banned, there's no way you [Jon Curry] can reply. These folks seem to have an unhealthy obsession with you. What on earth did you do to those poor boys?"

    Notice that he comments on how often we post replies to Jon Curry, as "David" has done here. Notice that "Joe" refers to people with the term "boy", as "David" has done here. Yet, "Joe" acknowledges that Jon was banned here, while "David" acted as if he didn't know whether Jon could post here.

    Why would you call yourself Joe in one place, but call yourself David here? Did you also go by multiple screen names at Stand To Reason? And why are you acting as if you aren't familiar with Jon's arguments in that thread? If you're Joe from that thread, then shouldn't you be familiar with Jon's arguments in that same thread? Or did you comment in that thread, including commending what Jon wrote there, without reading all of his posts?

    It seems that you've been deceptive, in more ways than one. Why should anybody be impressed that "David" supports what "Joe" and Jon argued in the Stand To Reason thread when "David" is the same person as "Joe"?

    If you are Joe from Stand To Reason, then not only are you dishonest (a fact that was already apparent for other reasons), but you're also repeating arguments that have already been refuted. You acknowledged that you weren't even taking the discussion at Stand To Reason seriously. You ignored large portions of what was written in response to you, much of what you wrote was incoherent, and you frequently tried to change the subject. Multiple posters in that thread noted how unreasonable you were.

    So, when "David", or "Joe", tells us...

    "In all seriousness, you should check out STR more often; those guys know how to run a forum for discussion."

    ...what he apparently means is something like "In all seriousness, you should check out STR more often; those guys let me lie and pretend to be somebody I'm not and post a lot of bad and often incoherent arguments and act in a generally evasive and dishonest manner, yet treat me with respect as an honest seeker, as if I deserve such respect regardless of my behavior."

    ReplyDelete
  20. Yup, I'm Joe. Given the insults at STR that were so obnoxious Amy had to spank you, I had no reason to expect fair treatment here if I identified myself as Joe.

    Look at your behavior at STR. Was my concern an unreasonable one? No, it was not. Look at your description of what I posted at STR. It's as disingenous as your posting of Jon Curry's comments at STR. I think you need to learn to disinguish "bad argument" from "opinion that differs from yours".

    But as it turn out, it doesn't matter who one is or what one says. If you dare to disagree with T-Baggers, the swill flies regardless. I see that you're now accusing some poor sod of being a "front man for eugenics". And I'm "unreasonable" and "dishonest"? Again, I would suggest that you worry more about the log in your eyes than about the the mote in the eyes of other.

    None of this changes the quality of the discourse at STR. Did you notice the difference while you were there? Have you noticed the range of opinions that are tolerated? I disgree with much of what is said by those who run the blog, but they are quality people. They are better men (and women) than I am, Gunga Din.

    By the way, with respect to the "bad argument" of the 500, while folks posted words in response to my point, it doesn't mean that the question I raised was answered. I was genuinely curious if Steve could do any better.

    Now, as Steve would say, shall we waste our time with diversions, or do you want to deal with the arguments? Or do I get banned (throw me in that briar patch).

    ReplyDelete
  21. David wrote:

    "Yup, I'm Joe. Given the insults at STR that were so obnoxious Amy had to spank you, I had no reason to expect fair treatment here if I identified myself as Joe."

    Nobody made you post here, and your dishonesty went beyond the use of a different name, as I've shown above.

    And I reject Amy's assessment of what happened in the Stand To Reason thread. But since you're suggesting that her assessment is reliable, let's apply that reasoning consistently. If she "spanked" me, and that proves that my behavior was "so obnoxious", then what does her "spanking" of you and Jon prove about your behavior? She commented, "Guys, you all need to simmer down a little.", and she deleted some portions of Jon's posts as well, not just mine. As I said, I reject Amy's assessment, so I'm not bound to its reliability. But if you're going to cite her "spanking" as evidence that my behavior was wrong, then what does her "spanking" of you and Jon suggest? You keep shooting yourself in the foot, as you did regularly at Stand To Reason.

    And here's what I wrote in response to you that you claim was "so obnoxious":

    "Since Joe is such a poor communicator, and he doesn't put much effort into his posts, we often have to guess at what he's trying to say."

    Later in the thread, you admitted that you sometimes didn't take the discussion seriously. And you had admitted to wording some of your comments poorly before I had even made my comment above. In other words, you admitted that there was some truth to both of my assessments.

    Here's how Amy responded to my comments above:

    "Jason, we do encourage people to argue vigorously in their comments about the arguments, and I appreciate the arguments you've laid out here, but a personal statement like this one is not helpful."

    What would Amy think of your many negative "personal" comments at Triablogue and elsewhere? You also made personal comments at the Stand To Reason thread, such as when you accused us of having an "unhealthy obsession" with Jon Curry. You've repeatedly engaged in the same sort of behavior for which Amy criticized me, and worse.

    And, yes, you are banned.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Cool. I've never been banned before. Is there a certificate for my wall? Adios.

    ReplyDelete