True Colors Exposed Again: Gastrich A Fraud and a Coward
David Horn
Corrected and Explained" has been removed from the Amazon web site and
my email has a response from "Joshua S" telling me that my reviews were
removed for "inappopriate content." While allegedly supporitng the
"right to free speech," I am told that "discussions that criticize
authors and their intentions are removed." Apparently, my suggestions
that Gastrich wants to sell his book and presumes to solve,
single-handedly, problems that have plagued apologetic through for
centuries (the only comments that I can immediately recall that address
his intent) are unacceptable. I am also told that my comments were "in
part, directed toward the author and their [sic] character." Hmmm...I
think all I really had to say there was that Gastrich's "doctorate" was
honorary and yes, I implied that he trades on that. I guess Gastrich
isn't as proud of that "doctorate" in places like Amazon (and his
"Gastrich for Governor" web site, which is still up) as he is everywhere
else on his web site and as he was for a time in these newsgroups.
Finally, I am told that I can only post one review of an item, even if
that item appears three separate times on the Amazon site in three
separate "editions."
In conclusion, I am told, "none of your review submissions for this
title fell without our guidelines," so "they have been removed from the
web site."
Of course, none of these things would be issues if Gastrich didn't lodge
a complaint. Amazon posted the reviews within a short time of their
composition. They could not have acted on them unless there was a
complaint.
I plan to send this "up the chain" at Amazon so that a closer
examination of Gastrich's motives and pretenses can be examined. I do
understand that Amazon isn't going to "take sides" in the issue, but I
wonder if they don't need a better idea of who and what Jason Gastrich
is and how he goes about his "business." I think I'll start with the
fact that Gastrich's e-book might be a problem because of the inclusion
of so much material that is not original with him. There may be
copyright issues involved.
I consider Gastrich's actions to be cowardly and reprehensible, and such
things demonstrate intent to silence critics. Gastrich may find that he
should have left well enough alone and I probably would have been
satisfied with a critical review on Amazon. But Gastrich has now thrown
down the gauntlet, and I will take it up. There are certainly more ways
to explore these things and insure that Gastrich never sells another
copy of his "awesome resource," and I intend to explore those ways. I
might start with buying a domain or three.
Thank you and good afternoon.
David Sienkiewicz
> My third review of Jason Gastrich's "Skeptic's Annotated Bible:
> Corrected and Explained" has been removed from the Amazon web site
< snip >
Interesting.
So Jason, the alleged "victim" of censorship and oppression and
elsewhere a presumed champion of free speech, does not believe that
the same freedom applies to others?
I find it ironic that we no longer have Davey around. Davey wasted no
small amount of verbiage complaining that we were repressing Jason's
free speech "rights." Here we have a much clearer example of that and
Davey is nowhere to be seen.
To his credit, he did promise his withdrawal from the newsgroups
BEFORE we became aware of this issue with Jason and Amazon.
Make no mistake, Jason is on the run. No doubt these constitute
desperate measures and the absolute worst that he can do.
Welcome back to the trenches.
"Yang, AthD (h.c.)" <eacmole@<<
Yang
"David Horn" <askifyourea...@coxspam.net> wrote in message
news:XBhhc.34431$bl.18397@okepread03...
Sarah Berel-Harrop
> Corrected and Explained" has been removed from the Amazon web site and
> my email has a response from "Joshua S" telling me that my reviews were
> removed for "inappopriate content." While allegedly supporitng the
> "right to free speech," I am told that "discussions that criticize
> authors and their intentions are removed."
Hm, is this person aware of Bill Dembski's review of
Perakh's Unintelligent Design? There seems like a bit
of a double standard going on. In fact, I suspect there
are a great number of reviews on Amazon that don't
meet the standards, as described.
David Horn
Probably not, but then, Amazon doesn't become aware of them unless
someone complains.
I think it's a bit hard to review a work without considering the intent
of the author, isn't it? Even if I wrote "Jason wants to sell books,"
well, I also wrote that this is not unreasonable for an author. I wrote
that he figures he can solve the problems he pretends to address. Well,
he does make that presumption, doesn't he?
In talk.origins, I can say "Jason Gastrich's book is crap" (and it is),
but in Amazon, I understand that I need to temper that somewhat. I
tried. Jason didn't like it and whined to Amazon. Amazon won't take
chances so they dumped the reviews. That's probably policy, too. There
is a hope that the reviewer won't come back and look; and normally, I
don't. This time I did. Now four reviews have been removed (I reposted
the fourth a short time ago). Particularly in the case of the fourth,
Amazon had no good reason to remove it, so I have asked for an
explanation from someone a bit further up the food chain.
Their email address is communi...@amazon.com
David Horn
> David Horn <askifyourea...@coxspam.net> wrote in message news:<XBhhc.34431$bl.18397@okepread03>...
>
>>My third review of Jason Gastrich's "Skeptic's Annotated Bible:
>>Corrected and Explained" has been removed from the Amazon web site
>
>
> < snip >
>
> Interesting.
>
> So Jason, the alleged "victim" of censorship and oppression and
> elsewhere a presumed champion of free speech, does not believe that
> the same freedom applies to others?
>
> I find it ironic that we no longer have Davey around. Davey wasted no
> small amount of verbiage complaining that we were repressing Jason's
> free speech "rights." Here we have a much clearer example of that and
> Davey is nowhere to be seen.
>
> To his credit, he did promise his withdrawal from the newsgroups
> BEFORE we became aware of this issue with Jason and Amazon.
I saw enough to know that he wouldn't address it even if he were still
posting.
> Make no mistake, Jason is on the run. No doubt these constitute
> desperate measures and the absolute worst that he can do.
I admit that it grinds my jaws a bit that a coward like Gastrich can
manipulate Amazon so easily, but I suspect that it's exactly in part
because Amazon is so large.
By the way, none of the pages at Gastrich's "ministry" seem to be
working and this has been true since this morning. You wouldn't know
anything about that, would you? :) On the other hand, the one area
that *is* working, of course, is the collection of sites that tout his
"book."
Anastasia
I looked at the web page on Amazon that advertises the third edition
and there I find the fourth review as reposted. It is interesting that
there are four other reviews--all positive and all dated since the
publication of your first review, that is, within the couple of weeks. I
also think that it is interesting that we cannot read about any of these
other reviewers. The youngster who tells us that her father is a pastor
strikes me as an obvious sock-puppet, as does the reader from Canada and he
from Florida. It is clear what is happening here, and it is not right. It
is also no more or less than I would come to expect.
Stasi
David
It may have been removed but I got to see it before that (I have pasted
it below). I also wrote the following e-mail to the address above.
[START e-mail]
The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained, Third Edition
by Jason, Dr Gastrich ,Jason Gast
To Whom it may concern,
I want to write a negative review for the CD-ROM above. I have noticed
that all negative reviews to date get deleted. Can you give me
guidelines to write a negative review that will not be deleted by the
amazon staff when Jason Gastrich complains about it.
This CD ROM deserves negative reviews and you will not be doing your
customers service by removing such reviews. At worst edit them to be
acceptable within the amazon.com quidelines, but please do not remove
them.
Also, if you are really serious at editing the reviews why not delete
the ones from people who have clearly not read the content. animoi47
from Finland continually refers to this product as a book. Do you think
he has seen the product?
[END e-mail]
I'll let you know what kind of feed back I get.
David
Below is the fourth 'deleted' review written by David Horn
Reviewer: Dave Horn (see more about me) from El Cajon, CA USA
It stands to reason that if an author is going to presume to correct the
alleged errors, misunderstandings and misperceptions presented in
another work, one might actually use arguments of his own that are not
specious and do not beg the questions being considered. It also doesn't
seem unreasonable for a reader to expect the author of such an ambitious
probject to possess the necessary training, qualifications and expertise
needed to address the problems as they are presented rather than skirt
the specific issues involved and resort to little more than gain-saying.
There simply is nothing of intellectual value in this self-published
e-book that draws most of the volume of its contents from material not
necessarily related to the topic at hand. The "Skeptic's Annotated
Bible" to which this is allegedly a rebuttal is a web-based resource
that is readily available at no charge for those who seek alernative
viewpoints to and reasoned analysis of certain aspects of American
fundamentalist christianity. Given that, it's not unreasonable to expect
some sort of reasoned response from a qualified theologian. We don't get
that here. This "rebuttal" feeds off of the popularity of the site, but
offers nothing of substance in return for the effort. For the unbiased
intellectual attempting to examine the christian viewpoint, the
arguments presented here are particularly unsatisfying. Many of them are
reminiscent of an exchange in Monty Python's "The Life of Brian," when
Brian asks his mother why women are not allowed at stonings. "Because
it's written, that's why," snaps the mother. There are many of those
kinds of "corrections" and "explanations" in this work and so many of
them are the same sort of vacuous and inadequate arguments that have
been provided so many times that one is also struck by the lack of
imagination, insight and originality that characterizes the whole of
what comparatively little was actually written by the author. The
history of christian apologetics is long and storied, and there are many
whom have contributed to the various debates on these issues through the
publication of commentaries, histories, works of exegesis and
hermaneutics. By and large, these authors have possessed the requisite
knowledge of history, culture, philosophy and language needed to provide
sound, intellectual analysis. None of that is evident here; and none of
the arguments presented will convince someone who is not already
predisposed to those arguments. But given the fact that far superior
resources are quite readily available - many times at no cost via the
WorldWide Web - one must wonder about the utility of "The Skeptic's
Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained," especially when it doesn't
explain or correct anything. The serious student of these subjects would
be better served by giving this one a pass.
Therion Ware
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 21:25:26 +0000 (UTC) in free.christians, David
Horn (David Horn <askifyourea...@coxspam.net>) said,
directing the reply to free.christians
Presumably the immediate solution, pending further clarification from
Amazon, is simply to point out a few illustrative errors in the book
with no reference to what Jason's motivation may be. And really, we
don't know if he's "mad, bad, or simply a git". And, of course, the
book stands or falls on its own merits, no matter how much of a
bankrupt git, morally and otherwise, Jason may be or may have been.
That said, his joke doctorate is probably worth a legitimate
mention.seeing as the third edition is listed as by "Jason, Dr
Gastrich".
>Their email address is communi...@amazon.com
Yes, I'm having a few words about this and will come back if anything
interesting develops.
Of course a copy of the book would be handy, but I find myself rather
loathe to actually pay for one given that even the humour value
wouldn't be worth what he charges.
As a matter of interest, does anyone know the cut Amazon takes for
marketing "privately printed" stuff like this?
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
John Wilkins
I think we should boycott Amazon, if they are going to censor reviews. I
was one of their first customers. I'm happy not to use them again.
--
John Wilkins
john...@wilkins.id.au http://www.wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
David Sienkiewicz
> David Sienkiewicz wrote:
> > David Horn <askifyourea...@coxspam.net> wrote in message news:<XBhhc.34431$bl.18397@okepread03>...
> >
> >>My third review of Jason Gastrich's "Skeptic's Annotated Bible:
> >>Corrected and Explained" has been removed from the Amazon web site
> >
> >
> > < snip >
> >
> > Interesting.
> >
> > So Jason, the alleged "victim" of censorship and oppression and
> > elsewhere a presumed champion of free speech, does not believe that
> > the same freedom applies to others?
> >
> > I find it ironic that we no longer have Davey around. Davey wasted no
> > small amount of verbiage complaining that we were repressing Jason's
> > free speech "rights." Here we have a much clearer example of that and
> > Davey is nowhere to be seen.
> >
> > To his credit, he did promise his withdrawal from the newsgroups
> > BEFORE we became aware of this issue with Jason and Amazon.
>
> I saw enough to know that he wouldn't address it even if he were still
> posting.
More than likely.
> > Make no mistake, Jason is on the run. No doubt these constitute
> > desperate measures and the absolute worst that he can do.
>
> I admit that it grinds my jaws a bit that a coward like Gastrich can
> manipulate Amazon so easily, but I suspect that it's exactly in part
> because Amazon is so large.
Amazon could not possibly maintain a staff to track such things, so I
suspect this is true.
Perhaps there are scripts and such that track flagrant violations -
the use of profanity and such.
But I suspect that action on other kinds of "violations" must be
prompted by an actual complaint.
> By the way, none of the pages at Gastrich's "ministry" seem to be
> working and this has been true since this morning. You wouldn't know
> anything about that, would you? :) On the other hand, the one area
> that *is* working, of course, is the collection of sites that tout his
> "book."
It shouldn't surprise anyone that if the site starts to have issues,
the one part of the site that is set up directly to generate revenue
would be considered the most vital and would get the most attention.
But no, if Jason's site is having troubles, it's not my doing.
Let's remember that I am less interested in shutting Jason down than I
am in getting him to behave honestly.
However, if he doesn't want to do that, shutting him down will be the
next best thing.
David Sienkiewicz
The timing of the new positive reviews is certainly good cause to be
suspicious, especially since a contact at Amazon tells me that sales
on the CD are not what one would call "brisk."
This added with the humiliation that Jason has been forced to endure
and will continue to endure probably contributed to his overreaction
in this case.
Robibnikoff
And the thing is, Amazon absolutely DOES post negative reviews. I've seen many
along the lines of "Don't waste your money buying this crap". Obviously,
Jason's been complaining and having any negative reviews removed.
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
David
> David Horn <askifyourea...@coxspam.net> wrote:
<snip>
Here is the reply from amazon.
[START]
Greetings from Amazon.com.
Thank you for bringing these reviews to our attention. Each of the
reviews mentioned in your e-mail message have been read by a
member of our Communities team.
Any of the reviews that we found to be outside our guidelines have
either been edited to bring them within our guidelines or have been
slated for removal. Any changes made to these reviews will become
effective online in 3-5 business days.
Please take a look at our review guidelines for more information:
http://www.amazon.com/o/tg/browse/-/508094/
Thank you for taking an active role in the Amazon.com community.
[END]
David
Don1
> Sarah Berel-Harrop <s...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>
> > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@coxspam.net> wrote in message
> > news:XBhhc.34431$bl.18397@okepread03...
> > > My third review of Jason Gastrich's "Skeptic's Annotated Bible:
> > > Corrected and Explained" has been removed from the Amazon web site and
> > > my email has a response from "Joshua S" telling me that my reviews were
> > > removed for "inappopriate content." While allegedly supporitng the
> > > "right to free speech," I am told that "discussions that criticize
> > > authors and their intentions are removed."
> >
> > Hm, is this person aware of Bill Dembski's review of
> > Perakh's Unintelligent Design? There seems like a bit
> > of a double standard going on. In fact, I suspect there
> > are a great number of reviews on Amazon that don't
> > meet the standards, as described.
>
> I think we should boycott Amazon, if they are going to censor reviews. I
> was one of their first customers. I'm happy not to use them again.
There are some other ways to deal with this issue as well. David could
edit his criticism and resubmit it, utilizing any number of devices to
demonstrate his point. He could also submit a criticism, focusing on the
content of the book. As you suggested, we could act as a group in defiance
of Amazon. We could boycott them. Alternatively, we could all write them
a letter/email. We could also all submit criticisms of Jason's book
independently.
My favorite is the last option. For example, those of us who actually
considered reading the book could write the following:
"I have considered buying and reading this book because of the amount
of information provided, not to mention the topic. While making this
consideration, I have researched the author's expertise in this area.
I found that even though Gastrich has quite a lot of information about
the Bible, he still lost several debates on the topic of Biblical
inerrancy. One such debate was to Sean McHugh and this fact can be
confirmed independently by the reader. Given that Gastrich has not
been able to successfully refute all claims of errancy in his debates,
I do not see how it could be done separately in his book. I, therefore,
have decided not to buy this book."
Even if Amazon decided to remove a posted rating, how could they possibly
keep up with all the bad ratings submitted and resubmitted for the books?
Eventually, they would be quite annoyed with Gastrich complaining...
Regards,
Don
Tim M
"Don1" <dina....@snet.net> wrote in message
news:56db0569.04042...@posting.google.com...
Isn't the best strategy to simply ignore him? Jason is an attention hound
and giving him any attention, whether good or bad, feeds his monstrously
huge ego.
Let's not give him any oppurtunity to claim persecution. Let him go off into
his own world and let his followers stroke is ego.
Don1
So you think Jason's primary motivation is attention? I disagree. He has not
posted on t.o. since Mar 19th. That is over one month. If he was seeking
such negative attention, then he would posting more than zero times in one
month.
You may be right in that some attention is motivational for him, but I think
he enjoys power and money much more. Like his mentor Kent Hovind...
> Let's not give him any oppurtunity to claim persecution.
My world does not revolve around Jason Gastrich, so why would I make a
decision based strictly on his reaction? I would rather keep others in mind,
such as those people who might be duped by his book.
Remember, debunking is important to all of society. If you do not agree, then
why do you have any interest in talk.origins?
> Let him go off into his own world and let his followers stroke is ego.
Jason has no interest in going "off into his own world." He wishes to have
a major effect on the real world. For example, he has run for Governor of
California. What would be the impact of no one standing up to him and
debunking his claims, while he was on the path to nomination? Would you
have his movement grow in size? Would you have the popular perception of
him be undefeated debating champion of Christianity?
Regards,
Don
David Horn
> "Tim M" <scot...@cox.spammerssuck.net> wrote in message news:<cEYhc.11884$c%3.3230@okepread02>...
>
>>"Don1" <dina....@snet.net> wrote in message
>>news:56db0569.04042...@posting.google.com...
[Snip]
>>Isn't the best strategy to simply ignore him? Jason is an attention hound
>>and giving him any attention, whether good or bad, feeds his monstrously
>>huge ego.
>
> So you think Jason's primary motivation is attention? I disagree. He has not
> posted on t.o. since Mar 19th. That is over one month. If he was seeking
> such negative attention, then he would posting more than zero times in one
> month.
>
> You may be right in that some attention is motivational for him, but I think
> he enjoys power and money much more. Like his mentor Kent Hovind...
This is definitely not the sort of attention Gastrich wants.
>>Let's not give him any oppurtunity to claim persecution.
>
> My world does not revolve around Jason Gastrich...
Well said.
> ...so why would I make a decision based strictly on his reaction?
> I would rather keep others in mind, such as those people who might
> be duped by his book.
Or his fake credentials.
> Remember, debunking is important to all of society. If you do not agree, then
> why do you have any interest in talk.origins?
>
>>Let him go off into his own world and let his followers stroke is ego.
>
> Jason has no interest in going "off into his own world." He wishes to have
> a major effect on the real world. For example, he has run for Governor of
> California.
That better not happen again while I'm breathing and living in this state.
[Snip]
harvest dancer
Jason Harvestdancer
David Horn <askifyourea...@coxspam.net> wrote in message news:<XBhhc.34431$bl.18397@okepread03>...
stoney
<nos...@newsranger.com>, Message ID:
<5fRhc.1886$H4....@www.newsranger.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
Jason's a Christian; honesty, ethics, or anything of a positive nature
isn't a requirement.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}