.@Dysology as before, and every time we dance this sad dirge to your cognition, my short answer is YES. My long answer is FUCK YES. @SITP— THE DISSENT OF MAN (@DISSENTOFMAN) January 31, 2016
I asked the Twitter account user "The Dissent of Man" to let me have their name so that I could cite it for the record. After all, it is only right to cite what others publish - is it not? I'm sure they have no reason to hide. There was a bit of confusing procrastination involving a strange Twitter account user copying me into their Tweets whilst claiming - implicitly - to represent The Dissent of Man:
Nevertheless, I awaited their response to my request.I really can't be arsed with this idiot. I've tried giving him what he wants. Anyone care to educate him? https://t.co/tWVqoUQ0cG— Jafe (@JFDerry) February 1, 2016
When a response finally came from it was from the new "J.F. Derry" Twitter account. Laced with aggressive anger and foul vitriol. The author of the Twitter obsenties, J.F. Derry, has written a book about Darwin. He does seems to be a bit of a Troll. I wonder if this angry Darwinist will come to one of my public lectures? I would be most interested to see what he would do in such a case were I to ask him - as I would - to be so good as to kindly repeat these words in public, in my presence. Perhaps he would froth, rabidly, at the mouth again?
@Dysology Look here you supercilious cunt, I told you who I was immediately. Stuff ur haughty "Wasn't that hard for you was it?" up ur arse— Jafe (@JFDerry) February 1, 2016
The first Twitter responses from "The Dissent of Man" is one very small item of hard evidence that perhaps confirms Stanley Cohen's (2001) sociological concept of 'States of Denial' . The second from "J.F.Derry" is open to several possible interpretations that may or may not involve his unrealised, and hence subconscious, desire to wield both colposcope and proctoscope for a living or hobby.
|A Typology of Cohen's Concept 'States of Denial' of obvious and significant facts.|
Such understandable anger. Poor chap. Like so many Darwin worshippers, he's been successfully punterized by Darwin and the Darwin Worship Industry.
As I collected more data from Twitter users responding to the facts of Darwin's serial lying, I found that one of J.F Derry's Twitter associates kindly copied me into his published thoughts. This chap's Twitter account name is "Thony Christie", and from what he writes, it is clear that he is equally annoyed by my insistence on sharing the independently verifiable "real facts" discovered by my research. He believes this defines me as mentally ill. How amusing and interesting. Well, if I'm mentally ill - I'd sure as hell hate to be as "sane" as him.
Perhaps, for being successfully, credulously, straitjacketed by the Darwinist Worship Industry's punterization - "Thorny Christie" has never discovered anything veracious in his life that goes against a factually incorrect majority view in this particular field of inquiry? Whatever the case, he is most welcome to the 'New Data' that I have originally contributed to the history of discovery of natural selection. And likewise, I must thank him for his public response to that data. Because his published response, and the published response of Derry, is now public domain data to be used by anyone who so cares to use it in future peer reviewed sociology publications on how paradigm changing discoveries in science are first received by the masses.@Dysology You do realise that you are displaying all the symptoms of severe mental illness. @JFDerry— Thony Christie (@rmathematicus) February 1, 2016
In order to further explore the applicability of the concept of 'states of denial' in the history of the discovery of natural selection, I started an appropriately sane discussion thread on Dr Mike Weale's "Patrick Matthew Project" website. The link to that thread is here.
I confronted Dr Mike Weale with his denial of the exact same obvious significance of the facts Darwin was a serial liar. The text below is my comment on Mike Weale's Patrick Matthew Project website:
Mike the facts Darwin lied are both obvious and significant.
Matthew published facts. And those facts were read by Darwin.
Darwin then immediately published a fallacy that was the very opposite to those facts published by Matthew. Obviously, therefore Darwin’s published fallacy is a lie. And it is both obvious and significant that the lie is told by Darwin because his fallacy (lie) serves as an excuse for Darwin’s replication (without citing) the prior published original ideas of Matthew.
Matthew in response to Darwin’s lie:
Matthew then published a second lot of facts that directly refutes the first lie that Darwin wrote about Matthew’s first published facts. So Darwin’s second fallacy is obviously and significantly yet another lie, because Darwin published the exact same fallacy about the second lot of facts Matthew provided him with as he did for the first. Consequently, Darwin’s behaviour is doubly dishonest, because Darwin repeats the lie on having read Matthew’s fact-based refutation of their first very self-serving lie – the very one Darwin first published as a fallacious excuse for not citing Matthew’s prior-published work.
The obvious and significant facts are that Matthew (1860) informed Darwin his original ideas on natural selection were read by (1) the naturalist John Loudon in 1832, (2) by an unnamed naturalist professor of eminent university in around 1845 (15 years earlier) – who feared pillory punishment were he to teach those original ideas, and (3) by whoever it was at the Public Library of Perth who banned his book for the heretical original ideas on natural selection in it. And then – having read those three obvious and significant facts, Darwin lied and lied and lied again that the original ideas in Matthews book were not read: https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=23118%2c23118
Anyone not considering this data – that shows Darwin’s fallacious responses to both of Matthew’s letters in the Gardener’s Chronicle (1860) – as obvious and significant facts that prove Darwin was a self-serving liar is obviously in a “state of denial” – in my considered opinion.
The question is what kind of obvious and significant fact denier might one in such a “state of denial” of these obvious and significant facts of Darwin’s self-serving and blatant serial lying be?
If not a “psychotic negator” (surely the worst kind) how about one who is at 3 or 4 in Cohen’s typology of those n a “state of denial” of the obvious and significant facts:
- ‘ Lying to convince their listeners and reinforce their own denial of the real facts’?
- ‘Negation by wishful thinking’?