'Little Willy' hardens!

See below for my other posts on 'Little Willy', suffice to say here, that he is a lad (he's 28 going on 14) who is happy to inform the world that he has a very small penis, that he is "pretty ugly" (a rather neat oxymoron) and is unable to grow a beard.  In addition, lest you doubt his 'good' intentions, his main interest is "saving the world from humankind [er, that's me and you, in case you're wondering] through progressive policies and compulsory voting with the single transferable vote".  What he actually means is that he intends to get his own back on the rest of us because the 'Intelligent Designer' (very intelligent, if you ask me) only gave him a titchy willy.  It is something akin to the syndrome suffered by the late Herr Hitler who, according to a popular song of the day, only had one ball!  'Willy' is currently studying for a Ph.D. and without doubt some ninny is going to give this particular ninny the title of Doctor of Philosophy.  Now you see why I am so very, very happy that I did not waste my time at University.

Anyway, recently he wrote a post lambasting Mr. Bjorn Lomborg and repeating the libelous statement that Mr. Lomborg had been "found guilty of scientific dishonesty" when he knew that the Danish Ministry that oversaw the work of this tribunal had dismissed their results when, upon investigation, it found that:

"[T]he committee's judgment was not backed up by documentation and was completely 'void of argumentation' for the claims of dishonesty and lack of good scientific practice."[1]

The committee concerned were offered the chance to re-open the case against Mr. Lomborg but declined!  Mr. Lomborg has since been employed by the Danish government.

Always eager to support any effort to keep science honest, I pointed all this out to 'Little Willy' on the assumption, silly me, that he would be pleased that Mr. Lomborg was not guilty, but my good news was met with the following: "It doesn't make you or Lomborg any less of a twat", "The guy is a moron", "the ignorant fucks who get taken in by this crap", and so on, ad nauseum.  Anyway, I reminded 'Little Willy' that better scientists than he had pointed out that today science is only ever a "provisional activity"(2), and even Newton had been corrected in his ideas on the nature of light; so it might be wise for him to be a little less certain and more open-minded on scientific matters.  He responded, to begin with, rather sensibly: "You can hardly blame Newton for missing light's dual properties as he was working with the best information available at the time."  I was cheered, dear reader; at last, I thought, 'Little Willy' is beginning to grow up because, of course, that phrase 'the best information available' is of the very essence when it comes to scientific investigation.  But alas, this was followed by another long rant on Mr. Lomborg's iniquities.

Battling on, I sent in a final post which I reproduce here but which 'Little Hitler - ooops, sorry - Willy' has censored:

""Yes, but unlike Lomborg I'm not using it to try and sell a dangerous and unscientific conclusion to the public" [I'm not sure what the "it" is that he is referring to, I think he means scientific methodology.]

Well, that, of course, is your *opinion*, to which you are fully entitled, believing, as you do, that:

1. Global temperatures are increasing, and,

2. That the cause of it is man-made.

On the other hand, it is my *opinion* that you may, or may not, be right on the first, but that you are probably wrong on the second. 

However, let us agree (go on, give it a try!) that in this debate we must be strictly scientific and maintain ethical standards.  Thus, we can both join hands and condemn loudly the disgraceful behaviour that went on in the publication of Amman & Wahl's papers which claimed to have replicated the Mann 'et al' results and thus confirmed the 'hockey stick' graph upon which much of the global warming hypothesis depends.  The whole thing appears to be as reliable as a nine bob note! You can read a layman's summary here:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

Now that was all very courteous, I felt, a reaching of hands across the great divide, that sort of thing, but, as you have probably guessed in outline, these were his final words on the subject left in place of my censored comment:

"Duff, I will not have anyone deny anthropogenic climate change here. In fact, from your demonstrable racism and climate change denial I will not tolerate you any more.

Fuck you, you bigoted, goat-fisting cockweasel."

Additional: This almost passed me by but please note his use of the phrase "anthropogenic climate change".  Until fairly recently the HAFs (Hot Air Fanatics) always referred to 'climate warming' but since the millennium the mounting barrage of scientific criticism of both their methods and their conclusions have begun to score damaging hits, plus, the outcomes of their predictions are way off target (see: Hansen, passim).  Thus the HAFs have been forced to change their catch phrase to what can only be described as a 'catch-all phrase'.

There speaks a true, latter-day Doctor of Philosophy!  I was slightly tempted to say that it is unfair to saddle the wider AGW crowd with this ignorant, stupid and fanatical little viper, but the fact is that he fits in all too well.  At the very top of the AGW movement there are 'scientists' whose every word is devoured wholesale by the political class but who refuse rudely and contemptuously any polite request for the mathematical codes upon which rest the conclusions that they seek to foist upon us.  If you doubt that, please click on the Bishop Hill link above.

However, my interest in 'Little Willy' goes further than mere science.  Generally I try to avoid psychology except when I read something by a true expert, Shakespeare, for example.  Before I entered 'Blogdom', I had never met a real fanatic before but suddenly they seemed to appear out of the ether like multiplying maggots.  I think of the likes of 'Lenin', 'Bionoc' and all the other shudder-inducers, and now I have 'Little Willy' to study.  What a specimen!  A real people-hater, a creature fit only for running a concentration camp in which his boundless hatred for Mankind could be fulfilled and in which no one would dare to contradict him.

(1) http://www.cambridge.org/uk/economics/lomborg/files/scientific_dishonesty_case_closed_-_lomborg_cleared.pdf

(2) The Age of Science by David Knight

Comments

[SIster Wolf]

I am interested in the Little Willy contretemps because a person of whom I was only dimly aware chose to attack me in a blog and then compare this to "Little Willie."

First, I think that censoring comments is not only cowardly but against the whole spirit of blogging as an exchange of ideas.

Second, I'm interested in knowing who lobbed the first personal attack....you or Little Willie?

Tangling with an unreasonable and/or psychotic person online is only rewarding up to a point. Although, like you, I am disinclined to let a nutcase have the last word.

[David Duff]

'Sister Wolf', a very tough fellow I once served with in the army told me never to interfere in other people's fights - just start, and stick to, your own! So, wimp that I am, there is no way I am going to interfere in a fight between two ladies, the details of which I am not familiar with. Suffice to say that the other lady concerned is an e-friend of mine and I like her.

As to 'Little Willy' and who mounted the first personal attack, feel free to check for yourself on his site. I ask pointed questions of bloggers who appear to be spouting non-truths or half-truths. Most of them give me back very pointed replies but a number, rather more than I imagined when I started blogging, reach instantly for the four-letter expletives followed fairly rapidly by the censor's blue pencil. Of course, this delights me because then I know I'm on the right track and they are on the back foot! For example, 'Little Willy, who is a Green fanatic, was extolling the use of wind turbine farms and when I asked him if it was true that these establishments required normal power stations as back-ups, he censored me. You are right, of course, that tangling with such people is a waste of time but we all need a little comedy in our lives.

Incidentally, anything goes here at Duff & Nonsense - except too much repetition of 4-letter invective. It's not that I require smelling salts for the shock, it's just that I find too much of it ugly and it tends to indicate that the writer cannot actually think.

[SIster Wolf]

No one likes a censorious hothead!

My 'blog policy" is the same as yours. And no need to take a side, by the way.

[Larry Teabag]

God, that Adolf Hitler was a right bastard wasn't he? Not content with massacring millions of Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals, and mercilessly invading his neighbouring states, he had to go top it all by deleting unwelcome comments from his personal website. Why, was there ever seen such villainy?

[JuliaM]

"God, that Adolf Hitler was a right bastard wasn't he? Not content with massacring millions of Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals..."

Not according to the Socialist Workers Party...

[punkscience]

Godwin's Law made a pretty early appearance there, ey?

[David Duff]

I would have expected something more rigorous in the way of critical analysis from you, 'Teabag', old chap; you being a maths wiz and all that.

If someone runs a blog with 'Comments' enabled, it is "a personal website" only in that the posts themselves are the personal views of the host. If he or she then invites comments, it ceases to be a private site and becomes public. Of course, it is for the owner of the site to lay down conditions (I do so myself), *but* it is then open to anyone to comment on those conditions, either on the site itself or elsewhere. As I have remarked before, opening a blog is the equivalent of standing on a soapbox in Hyde Park - and we all know the reception certain speakers willsometimes receive from their less than appreciative audiences.

'Sister Wolf', who is, I suspect, as far from me politically and socially as you can get, sums it up neatly;

"I think that censoring comments is not only cowardly but against the whole spirit of blogging as an exchange of ideas."

[David Duff]

LATE NEWS! Down below in the comments to my post: "Bishop smites HAFs", 'Little Willy' himself has put in an appearance. I have posed him a question. Trembling with anticipation, I await his answer!

[punkscience]

I blog for my own amusement, not yours. I also have a political philosophy to advance through it and I reserve the right to delete anything and everything which I feel is either an outright affront to- or irrelevant to it.

A gift for you, Duff.

http://punkscientist.blogspot.com/2008/08/why-i-will-not-answer-david-duffs.html

Ha harrrr, you got seriously pwn3d.

[punkscience]

Just for you.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/science.jpg

x x x

[Larry Teabag]

Well David, even accepting for the sake of argument that "censoring comments is not only cowardly but against the whole spirit of blogging", that still leaves it a little way short of Hitler's crimes, wouldn't you say?

In fact, only in the suppurating, maggoty sponge which passes for your brain, could the deletion of your cretinous outporings count as evidence of generalised people-hatred and Nazism.

And while we're on the subject, it's a bit fucking rich to complain that the use of (*shudder*) naughty words "tends to indicate that the writer cannot actually think", while at the same time calling anyone you disagree with "a creature fit only for running a concentration camp".

I've been called a Nazi several times by you in the past, and it's a pretty low and contemptible tactic. So until you get your own house order, you can shove "the whole spirit of blogging as an exchange of ideas" up your hypocritical old arse-hole.

[David Duff]

You've forgotten to take your pills again, Larry! It wasn't the "deletion of [my] cretinous outpourings" that occasioned my description of 'Little Willy' but his own intemperate words and actions.

I know you archive my "cretinous outpourings" with religious fervour in order to spring a quotation at me from circa 1953 but I cannot believe that I ever have called you a nazi, nor indeed, is it my practice to call others nazis. If the term "concentration camp" bothers you, I will happily change it to 'gulag' - will that make you feel better?

Now, go and lie down like the doctor told you!

[Larry Teabag]

I cannot believe that I ever have called you a nazi

Here you called me "an excitable little Hitler" for some equally footling reason. (Don't try it on with the "this site disassociates itself" rubbish, that won't wash.)

And that's just for example, you understand.

No it's not the specific term "concentration camp" which bothers me. It's the suggestion that calling David Duff rude names on the internet, or deleting his idiotic comments, or whatever it is which has got your goat, is even vaguely comparable to committing genocide; or that it is remotely indicative of a Hitler-like "boundless hatred for Mankind". These are not sensible things to suggest, see?

The second thing which bothers me is if the same person who habitually flings these sort of accusations around, should then have the audacity to mount his high horse and lecture others about "the whole spirit of blogging" and complain about other people using (*tremble*) rude words.

Let me make this simple:

(i) calling someone an "twat" is not as nasty or offensive as calling them "Hitler". You frequently do the latter, therefore you have no right whatsoever to complain about the former.

(ii) Being rude to David Duff online is indicative of a sensible, sane, and healthy human mind. It is no evidence at all for being "fit only for running a concentration camp".

[David Duff]

I'm not surprised, Larry, that I have to teach you the finer, shaded meanings of the English language, you being an 'Algebra Algy' and all that, but calling someone a "little Hitler" is not an indication of their politics but of their personality. Actually you know that perfectly well, you're just being silly - again!

If I had ever indicated that "being rude to David Duff online" was evidence for someone being "fit for running a concentration camp[/gulag]" I would have accused you of it years ago, indeed, I would have offered you a promotion to Camp Commandant! It is 'Little Willy's' own words that give away so much about him - just go and read his blog and his re-action to anything that does not accord to his own views. Perhaps his self-described aim in life will do for starters:

"saving the world from humankind through progressive policies and compulsory voting with the single transferable vote"

Did you notice that in his view it is *people* who are the danger and that only *his* politics, enforced by *compulsion*, will save the world. You don't need a degree in psychology to get the drift of this little fanatic.

By the way, "Being rude to David Duff online is indicative of a sensible, sane, and healthy human mind" is definitely untrue and you are the proof of it! That's called logic, that is!

[David Duff]

LATE NEWS: I notice from my visitors list that someone (not a million miles from this thread!) was looking up my previous reference to Dr. 'Teabag' as "a little Hitler" which, incidentally, was in January 2007. Anyway, the comment thread is worth a quick skim-read because even though I wrote half of it, it still made me chuckle.

http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/duff_nonsense/2007/01/photographic_ar.html