LaVallette: Fail – Like others before

You can probably tell by the title that I’ve been drawn into reading this blog. It’s addictive. Thanks for helping me pick up the habit, Ed, The.

Anyway, it’s well past Friday, and “LaVallette” has failed to even attempt to substantiate his allegation that I’m somehow anti-Catholic…

“…about the whereabouts of anti catholic bigots first have a look at your blog and then have a look in the mirror.”

(“LaVallette“, 2008 )

OH NOES! LOOK IN THE MIRROR! Which in terms of substantiation, ranks up there with “because I said so”, “no, you are!” and “I am rubber, you are glue…” Truly the stuff of puerile, dishonest tanties which was a constant theme throughout his posts. Not the stuff of a valid argument however.

I was away for the computer for a bit last week, owing to being a carer. So I broke from tradition (which would be to ban “LaVallette” for trolling though abuse, defamation and blatant dishonesty – if you read the thread it’s riddled with straw-men arguments) and stated that I wouldn’t ban “LaVallette” if he/she* would either; substantiate his allegation (a pejorative asserted with due care for the truth isn’t defamation after all), or show some intellectual honesty and retract his claim.

He/she had until yesterday, and he/she was commenting at the time that the challenge was issued.

“LaVallette” claimed that he/she was up for “robust debate”, so I dusted off the podium and handed it over by way of a thread just for “LaVallette” to press their charge against me and you would think that someone claiming to want “robust debate” would be up for it. You would think, that parading as what Arthur called a “martyr for your [LaVallette's] “alternative point of view””, being given a dedicated thread would precipitate something.

Instead, “LaVallette” either ran away or choked. Fast, furious and hot-headed assertions followed by rapid exits. It’s a repeated theme. We got the same from Rick Fanning this week as well, specifically in relation to his claim that; “I [Rick Fanning] have read a number of articles about evidence being found for it [Medieval Warm Period] in various parts of the globe.”

Which articles? Peer reviewed? When? Where” Details!

Perhaps we’ll hear from Rick sometime, but then on the same thread as that upon which Rick commented, we had spam from a “Max Anacker” in April last year, where Max failed to respond to criticism and earlier in March of last year, we had Jack Lacton. Jack asserted that “your #10 completely lacks scientific accuracy, which is no surprise when non-scientist Quiggin is the source”, but of course he didn’t tell how #10 lacks scientific accuracy (hard considering that it doesn’t) and Quiggin wasn’t the source, I just pointed out that he’d made the observation.

I even went to Jack Lacton’s blog (he did leave a link) and left a comment asking him to come back and substantiate his assertion. Y’know, furnish it with a little bit of evidence and even just to have an argument rather than a statement. Jack didn’t get back to us.

People who duck in, assert and duck out without substantiation. John calls them snipers, which I gather is a play on a couple of uses of the word “snipe” (many being applicable) and barring Rick who I’ll leave a light on for a little longer, I consider them all “snipers”; Lacton, Max and LaVallette.

So, with things returning to normal around here, and me wanting to talk about things of more importance than trite allegations and personal attacks, “LaVallette” is now banned from commenting on this blog.

“LaVallette” may whine about being censored and so forth and indeed demonstrated a penchant for it early on with that line that will keep me laughing for a while yet; “Of course I fully expect that you will ban me from any further comments on this blog: you are too afraid of an alternative point of view”, but seriously entertaining this twaddle would be a mistake.

People who come here in good faith to engage in honest discussion have a right to do so without the distractions of being subjected to abuse, torrents of hysterical dishonesty and defamation. We have a right to discussion as well. “LaVallette” can’t seriously complain about a lack of respect for “an alternative point of view”, because “LaVallette” doesn’t extend this respect to begin with.

It is “LaVallette” who has show intolerance to contrary views, and it’s like that Popper quote goes… My tolerance toward “LaVallette’s” intolerance has come to an end (albeit after being kept on life support by way of a sort of grace).

I think this post can serve as an example for future cases.

~ Bruce

* Previously, I described “LaVallette” as being a male, which being based on the level of bellicose and posturing, was a stereotyped assumption. I retract this assumption. I don’t conversely assume that “LaVallette” is female either, depsite what may be a feminine “La”.