AnnaAgainstAtheists: Accusations of sock-puppetry answered

[chris.fo...@gmail.com]

Anna has taken to accusing me of being a sock-puppet. This is not the
first time she has done this, but now she is being specific about it
on her channel page, effectively banning me from posting there.

It's curious that this has occurred *after* I tried to repost a debate
challenge to her which she, again, refused to allow to post.

Here's her channel page post: "Until you stop flagrantly infringing YT
policies with multiple accounts and cowardly spamming of other
people's clean and coherent comments and demonstrate clearly that you
do NOT belong to the vile category of deranged fanatical atheist
commentators as per the post below this one, please DO NOT expect me
to be so ingenuous as to actually allow your perverted posts onto my
channel page thank you or to respond to your misguided windbag
provocations. You emplify an extreme case of DELUSIONAL FANATICAL
ATHEISM and are about as remote from Harvard University as you are
from the nearest galaxy. Looking forward to seeing a reformed
CAFoster58 and good luck with the treatment."

In the GREAT ATHEIST QUOTES comment section, she posted this: "Please
learn to accept defeat in discussion like a man instead of using
multiple sockpuppets for multiple self-edification and self--
consolatory green thumbs and multiple spiteful and "spamicide" red
thumbs, and try coming back once you've reformed because you're a
disgrace to YT and your intellectual dishonesty and trickery make any
reasonable discussion with you impossible, and that's that."

Here is my response:

Anna, be specific about the defeats that I am alleged to have
suffered. If readers check the Google Group, Debating YouTube Theists,
they will find a few of our exchanges documented and I suspect that no
reasonable person will see that I have been defeated by you.

You have made the sock puppet accusation before, Anna, and each time,
I have asked you for your evidence.

You have never provided it.

I know that you are relying on a known sock-puppet master, himself,
for your claims, and you should know that I challenged him to produce
his evidence, as well.

He wouldn't do that, Anna.

Anna, you are making the accusation for exactly the same reason that
he did: You cannot intelligently answer the rebuttals and questions
that have been put to you.

You want to distract the readers from that fact, so you make
accusations and never cite evidence.

That's an exceptionally dishonest tactic, Anna. You are a liar.

I have already said that I do not rate posts. I think it's silly.

I urged others not to mark your posts as spam.

Anna, you have never shown any intellectual dishonesty on my part.

Along with many others, I have shown your arguments to be shallow and
without substance. I have shown them to be logically fallacious and
lacking in evidence.

I know that your accusations are simply knee-jerk because you can't
argue your case; and I am not the only one accused of creating sock
puppets.

The way that I see it, Anna, you are one who craves attention, but
your narcissistic tendencies require that it always be affirming
attention. Perhaps you are used to being told, all of your life, how
cute and clever you are. But in real life, outside of the protection
of your home, the real world does not have to accommodate you,
especially when you post silly, ignorant, or stupid things.

What should also be considered, Anna, is this: I have already rebutted
your sock puppet claims and you never responded - not with a rebuttal
of your own and not with evidence that shows that your accusations
have any merit.

Consequently, as I said, any reasonable person who knows what's going
on will see your tactic as cowardly subterfuge, designed to divert
attention from the substance to the lurid and sensational.

We can't really expect any better from you, after all.

Understanding that, Anna, I can take your slanderous comments in
stride. I know that your claims are false, and those who don't know
that for sure will certainly understand that it's not so much who is
saying what to whom, but what is being said. The *substance* is what
matters, Anna.

You seem to be quite put off by the negative ratings that you get, and
it never seems to occur to you that you get so many because of your
hostile, trolling activity. You also can't seem to accept that it
could be that what you have to say has little or not merit to those
who bother to rate your posts.

I don't need those kinds of superficial trappings on YouTube channels
to feel better about myself, Anna. But you make much of them. It's
obvious that they are important to you.

It's not only possible, Anna, it's likely.

Millions look at YouTube every day. Some of them are atheists.

They will note that you troll atheist videos and post disparaging and
often insulting commentary, and it's no surprise that, seeing you in
so many video comment sections, some of them might choose to rate you
down everywhere that you post, just for "shits and grins."

I have discouraged both that and marking your posts as "spam." I
don't find either tactic all that useful.

Empty accusations made without evidence are also of no use, Anna, and,
in your case, are designed to distract the readers from the substance
of the discussion - substance that is sorely lacking in your
commentary.

I suspect that you have fallen back on the accusations because you
know that you have been severely crippled in your hate campaign
against atheists, and this is your way of striking back.

In the end, you are impotent, Anna, and my exposure of you will
continue.