ABC bloggers are annoying

[Skids]

Has anybody read the ABC blogs about the conference? Bloody crap. This is the level of argumentation: Many good people are religious, therefore all the child rape, subjugation of women, killing in the name of dog is ok. Arrgh! One guy, who seems are total tool is doing a doctrate on scientific and religious knowledge. In other words, a doctrate on his misunderstanding of science and subjective feelings about religion that he feels is knowledge. The worst bit is I know he's doing this doctrate because he plumps each blog post with his degrees like a tosser.

I'll do the same:

Skids has degrees in (computer) science and arts (psychology) from Deakin. Dropped out of applied geology (RMIT) after two drunken years and briefly studied a graduate diploma in philosophy at Monash until he had an online stoush with a tool of a tutor and thought the better of further tertiary study.

Makes me look as big a tool as Chris Mulherin.

/RANT

[Skids]

Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black

But then, I guess we've all been doing that of late.

Of late? I've always been deluding myself.

Good point about homeopathy, etc. I guess I just have this infantile notion that when reviewing something, one ought to be able to review it fairly. Stacking blogs with people who are quite biased and/or deluded, then demanding from the conference outcomes that really only suit themselves (not conference goers) pisses me off a bit. Must grow up and accept that not everybody cares about being fair or honest. Truth be dammed!

[DaveMcRae]

Not just you!

I had a look over there and nearly lost my lunch - worst of all is because ABC is funding these drips to do this 'journalism'

Endless repetition of the hurt card because athiests redicule us or are intolerant of scriptures that order genocide to the never gets old for them gem athiesm=fundamentalism

[Justin]

I met Chris Mulherin during the dinner and heard that he had picked out an individual at the dinner that best suited his aims for interview. He comes close to openly admitting this when he discusses the people at his table where he meets James who mentioned a role for forgiveness that appealed to his Xian outlook.

When I confronted him about the problems with his "questions I will be asking at the Conference" he went to a refrain of "Hang on..you don't represent everyone here" and he uses that same refrain whenever he gets the "wrong" answer from James. But then who picked him out to non-represent us?

Interview with James HERE.

[gruber]

And, let’s face it, we can do really stupid things with science: The cane toad, anyone?

I thought that was some poeple trying to get rid of a bug eating the crops

[Chris]

Hi Justin,

Come on... that's not on. Firstly I sat next to James by pure coincidence, the table started talking and he had a lot of opinions... so I asked him if he would like to do an interview which I put on the blog.

Secondly, you know that when you met me I specifically invited you to write something for the blog. I gave you my email address and didn't hear anything so I sent an email to you the next day. Verbatim I quote it, written March 14 at 8am:

Hi Justin,
Good to meet you last night...
I'd really like to put your thoughts on the blog... Are you still happy to give me some? I know you're busy... but the sooner the better would be good.
Cheers,
Chris

I don't mind the 'vigorous' nature of the discussion, but I've tried hard to stick to the issues and not misrepresent people. Your comment above does misrepresent things...

Anyway... I was looking forward to hearing from you!

Chris

[Justin]

Hi Chris,

Well now I see you are happy to misdirect rather than answer the charges directly. My comments to you were going to be about your original questions not the contents of your interview that was yet to happen. At the time I suggested that your choice was based on your own agenda rather than choosing someone embedded in the movement as a representative of the landslide of ideas emerging from atheism. You chose to ignore those comments with predictable results. Even then you had to resort to your standard refrain of "hang on, surely you can't be representing the ideas of the group" whenever the answer didn't meet your agenda. But you CHOSE him as a representative of the group.

As to those original questions I am sad to say were so badly thought through that even the most cursory examination of them by *any* active atheist reveals an agenda.

And great to see that a bishop got the last word on the ABC news article on the conference. Unbelievable ..

In the meantime please go back and start refuting the charges laid against you...

Cheers,

Justin

[Chris]

Hi Justin,

I think I already answered the questions... and the offer remains. Write something for the blog: your response to the convention. You don't need to take my questions as your topic. It won't be edited unless it's very long or off topic or abusive.

As for my questions or blogs being biased... They are MY opinion and who I am is all up front. The ABC invited me as a 'guest blogger'. I don't get told what to do by them and they don't pay me. I give my opinion on the blog. Maybe your beef is with the ABC, but that's another story already played out in the commentary.

Anyway... if you send me a serious reflection on the Convention I'll post it (subject to ABC editorial policy). But an attack on me or the ABC probably won't get published as it is off topic.

I also asked someone called Julie to do something which got posted. I'd never met her before but she was a prolific and thoughtful commentator on the blog. Is that bias? I did NOT invite either of them because they would say what I wanted them to. I did invite them because they were thoughtful. And I did invite you too: was that bias? So just do it: send me some comments.

Cheers,
Chris