So here's how it went down. Somehow Turkel finds it necessary to check up on almost every activity I'm engaged in and digs into my own personal agendas. So "Holding" comes across this blog post of mine where I stated:
I recently noticed another blog that apparently started up in March which is very critical of J.P. Holding, here. I personally do not like Holding, but I'm probably not going to waste my time on him, except to point out what others are saying about him.
The link provided led to this blog: http://jpholding.blogspot.com
Okay, so then Turkel thinks he's discovered some sort of "conspiracy" on my part because the descriptions of both blogs were identical:
Notice that there's no name attached to this blog, no one who takes responsibility for it whatsoever. Yet DJ says he "recently noticed" this blog. Hmmm. Note also this quote:
There are several sites dedicated to exposing James Patrick Holding's disgusting and depraved tactics, along with the way he dishonestly mischaracterizes his skeptical opponent's arguments. This Blog's purpose is to draw the attention of search engines so that people can come here and find out about J.P. Holding
Exhibit 3:
http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4637087.../posts/default
Hmmmm.....this seems to be some kind of source code and material for the site noted as Exhibit 2...look, the very same quote appears:
There are several sites dedicated to exposing James Patrick Holding's disgusting and depraved tactics, along with the way he dishonestly mischaracterizes his skeptical opponent's arguments. This Blog's purpose is to draw the attention of search engines so that people can come here and find out about J.P. Holding
And then in Holding manages to "prove" I was the owner and author of the advertised blog:
And my goodness....whose name do we find there in the code?John W. Loftus
My my my my my my my my.....Doubting John is SUCH a liar. And a very stupid one, too.
There never seems to be an instance when "Holding" could refrain from insulting remarks, because if he did he probably won't be earning such high praise from the jackels over at TWeb.
Getting on to the point here, people have been making a fuss in my blog response to this ludicrous post:
As far as my being dishonest goes, technically I was not dishonest, even if I was deceptive.
Turkel manages to put the quote on his website as though I've made a contradicting statement here. This is what makes Holding and his little batch of acne-filled teenagers at TWeb so gullible and shamefully ignorant. Anyone who does not know the distinctions between dishonesty and deception should really have their head checked, or at least, become educated on the true meaning of the terms.
Nonetheless, this is an appropriate self-defense, and by which, I will demonstrate that dishonesty and deception can be placed into exclusive contexts. With that said, I will be defining both words straight out from the Online Oxford Dictionary:
dishonest
• adjective not honest, trustworthy, or sincere.
— DERIVATIVES dishonestly adverb dishonesty noun
So there's our first defintion. Notice that "deception" is not listed as a synonym. Hmmm....I wonder how Turkel manages to explain away that one.
deception
• noun 1 the action of deceiving. 2 a thing that deceives
Yet again there seems to be no sort of defined relationship between dishonesty and deception. There is no doubt Turkel and Co have displayed a large amount of their ignorance by not recognizing their distinctive differences.
So when it comes to logic and reasonable inference, Holding doesn't stand up by a longshot. The fact of the matter is that one being dishonest does not constitute one being deceptive. Let's see Turkel and his friends try to debunk that one.
No comments:
Post a Comment