TurnerDiaries (ExposingCondell#) showing pettiness and hypocrisy

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

The activities of TurnerDiaries (Josiah Avraham Ben Morgan HaNasi II)
and his many sock puppets have been excellent examples of a young,
obsessive, and sociopathic theist. Much of his commentary takes on a
tone of personal animosity toward those with whom he disagrees,
especially Pat Condell. But in many of his criticisms, we find
obvious hypocrisy. This particular comment has been reposted many
times across several of Condell's video comment sections:

"Pat has no intention of listening to another perspective; no interest
in hearing anything which may,[sic]potentially, challenge his opinions
and open his mind to theism; he refuses to read, or responds to,
dissenting messages- stated on his channel- or comments."

There is much that is revealed in these comments. They clearly
indicate a degree of resentment that had been previous expressed by
TurnerDiaries, many times, in the main channel comment section, prior
to being blocked.

Pat Condell has, posted in his channel description, this disclaimer:

"AN ADVANCE APOLOGY
I welcome all messages and e-mails, and I'm keen to hear everyone's
opinion, but please don't be offended if I don't reply, as I'm now
getting hundreds every day and it has become impossible to answer them
all. For this reason please don't write me any long essays. I won't
read them."

Even a cursory examination of the main channel comment area provides
some verification. There are presently over 26,600 comments posted
there. That's an average of 40 comments per day, since Condell first
created the channel and, of course, no one would deny that the number
of daily posts, today, will likely far exceed the number of posts, per
day, that were appearing when the channel was young.

No reasonable person would expect the channel operator, if that is the
correct term, to respond to a fraction of those comments, let alone
all of them, especially when one considers that the number of channel
comments must be weighed with respect to the quality and usefulness of
them. This is YouTube, after all, and so we can easily dismiss most
of the comments as nonsensical and not worthy of time to rebut.

However, we must also include the numbers of comments in *each* of the
specific video comment sections. The "Was Jesus Gay" video has over
14,000 comments (many by TurnerDiaries and his socks, based on a
reasonable hypothesis with regard to the attention that TurnerDiaries
has paid to this particular video).

"Godless and Free" has only been up for a month, and has already
received more than 7,000 comments.

I think it is reasonable to accept Condell's disclaimer that he has no
time to read, let alone respond to, the comments that appear, as well
as emails (which he does acknowledge, occasionally, in his video
narratives).

Basically, Condell has a policy that is very common: Getting so many,
there is no time to filter through to those worthy of response, so
responding to none is the best alternatives.

Included in the disclaimer is the comment that long essays will not be
read. This is also reasonable.

Josiah (and his TurnerDiaries, ExposingCondell, et al. sock puppets)
seems to believe that his, above all of the other YouTube
commentators, deserves special consideration and should be read, and
complains bitterly that his do not get read. He conflates his
complaint with closed-mindedness and a lack of free-thinking, but
there is no evidence of anything other than prudence.

Josiah also forgets that YouTube is a *video* exchange site of sorts -
it involves the posting of *video* commentary. As much as Pat Condell
disclaims that he doesn't have time to read or respond to comments and
emails, he's said nothing about video responses. He cites his
favorite videos and the "videos watched" count (presently at 2,911)
shows an average of over four videos viewed per day since the channel
was created.

And we should keep in mind that this is the number of videos that are
viewed while the user is signed in, so we do not know how many total
videos Condell has viewed, over time, while simply not logged in.

So he pays some attention to videos.

When Josiah was posting every day in the main channel, he wrote many
times of some collection of video rebuttals that he was putting
together. Apparently, *all* of these alleged videos were specifically
directed to videos created by Pat Condell. If we forget that this is
simply another indication of Josiah's envy and resentment, it is
probably fair to assume, given all of the facts, that Condell would
see at least a few of them.

But those videos never materialized, even though the claim that they
are in production has not disappeared.

My point, here, is that Condell's lack of attention to posted comments
and emails is reasonable, and Josiah's complaints that they are not
read is not reasonable, under the circumstances. It constitutes a
petty complaint.

The hypocrisy is in Josiah's complaint when one considers that he
(Josiah) likewise does not generally respond to criticisms of his
comments.

It is also likely, based on the frequency during which his commentary
doesn't really address the argument that he presumes to rebut (which
is often the case with the rebuttals to Condell videos, as well), that
he doesn't read or pay much attention to the subject of rebuttal.

Josiah also has a policy in which he states that he does not respond
to rebuttals to his comments that might appear in the video comment
sections. Nor is he willing to debate with those who disagree with
his comments.

So Josiah expects Pat Condell to discuss and debate in response to his
(Josiah) posted comments, but he has no willingness to reciprocate
with those who might take issue with those posted comments.

As if to underscore that point, Josiah has specifically refused to
debate me on the issues about which he posts, and, so far, he has
ignored Dave0258's challenge to debate.

That's just one part of the hypocrisy. The other has to do with the
claims that Pat Condell's refusal to discuss rebuttals or read long
essays indicates that he is closed-minded to theism.

We should note that no specifics are provided that explain just why it
is that Condell is closed-minded to theism. It is simply declared,
and we are left to assume that this is because Condell does not read,
specifically, the rebuttals (such as they are) posted by Josiah and
his many sock puppets. It seems to me that it would be much more
effective to show the specific evidences for theism that have been
ignored, but Josiah does not do that. In fact, he is on record as
agreeing, at least begrudgingly, that it is, at least, very difficult
to provide evidence that God exists. If one admits that such a thing
is, next to impossible - if not impossible - how can one, then,
presume that another is being closed-minded to the possibility?

These are just examples of the pettiness and hypocrisy displayed by
Josiah, through and by his many user names and sock puppets. This
thread is set aside so that more examples may be cited and discussed.

As always, Josiah is welcome to join the group and respond to these
comments.

C