1,216 Matching Annotations
  1. May 2019
    1. And you'll pay for it

      This is utterly useless, it accomplishes nothing. This is the behavior of the weak and powerless. You want to help, contact Emil Kirkegaard and see if he needs anything. Contact Noah Carl, etc., Make yourself actually useful.

    2. I had no involvement with the open letter

      Oliver generally claims innocence when he was involved up to his eyeballs. He tossed mud and made it look real, and started a rock rolling down a hill, which led to an avalanche. Did he cause the avalanche. There is a forest fire, but he didn't light it, he merely lit a small fire to cook his lunch. Honest, it wasn't me!!! But he is not honest.

    3. the closing down

      Let's say the evidence contradicts this.

    4. Mike just misrepresents and straw mans

      He wasn't talking to you, stoopy-head. The biggest mistake you make with Mike is not stepping aside and letting the community deal with him. Instead you are compelled, and if fucks up your head.

    5. forgot to take the happy pill today

      I think this may be an ordinary day for Mike. Look, he's been shut up and shut out of RatWiki for years, so of course he's going to dump. It's not worse than what many have written here, it is just obviously much more politically incorrect, and he has no idea of how to actually communicate with this community, except through insults. It might take him some time to figure it out, changes like that don't happen overnight.

    6. Just saying

      Okay, what Mike would answer. That an individual is smart and successful does not mean that the <group> they came from is relatively capable compared to another group. Or if he is a true and complete racist, he will say "He was made a judge just to make it look like Aborigines are equals."

      Much of the argument in this issue -- on both sides -- is actually beside the point. What if group X is less intelligent on average? What difference does that make? Society is learning to treat people, all people, as individuals, not as members of a group.

      There are, in fact, cultural differences that can be important. I was writing about this more than a decade ago, when racialism was much more accepted, when it was widely believed that "they" were different in important ways from "us."

    7. He argues race is a valid biological category; I don't.

      Mike and Oliver have been having this argument since 2012, repeated over and over. Really, a page could be created with lists of arguments on the sides, and then they could save a great deal of time: Oliver: 3. Mike: No, you idiot, 17. Oliver, 13. Mike: 17. Oliver: You just said that! MIke: 12. Sysop: Okay, guys, enough for the day, 20 hour block.

    8. fucking ignoramus, with a very big mouth

      Mikemikev is smart, but too big for his britches. He is quite accustomed to dealing with shallow thinkers and is simply assuming you are one, and gets some kind of joy out of insulting you.

      What would be useful could be to allow him to present his arguments within the bounds of civility, as in academia. It can be done, but it's some work. If it were up to me, I'd negotiate with him, and allow him an account if he would agree to behavioral restrictions. Then realize that he has years of habit and might violate them. But humans can be trained, it merely takes patience. At least most can. I have no idea if he would accept, but my guess is, from what little I know of him, including in person, if he made a commitment he would keep it. The big mistake that many wikis make is to disrespect users, it creates trolls from those who might not otherwise turn into them. Respect works, and, remember, I was a prison chaplain.

    9. same intelligence as the Japanese

      He is not defining terms, he is carrying on a years-old argument as if it was all obvious, when it's not. Stick with rude, I suggest, Dysk.I rather doubt that he has ever been confronted by someone truly knowledgetart by being authentic and detached. I think you are good at that.

    10. the majority viewpoint because anyone who dissents from it gets fired.

      He is right about that. The reality is complicated. Academic freedom is important, and it gets lost in the political shuffle.

    11. you are fucking rude mate.

      Yes. Actually Dysk, stick with that. You might get some traction.

    12. a form of pseudoscience by these standards

      Give yourself some time, Dysk. You may mellow some. Something does not become "pseudoscience" by being a minority point of view. Yeah, for the most part, biological race is an illusion, but race can still be scientifically studied as a social category, and some of the people attacked do that.

    13. In a way we are all activists here, promoting our own pet views on the world.

      I keep saying that Dysklyver is brilliant. He is young. He claims to be a lawyer. which he has never explained, very unusual at his age. He might mean "paralegal."

    14. If there was any justice in the world you'd be rotting in the bottom of a ditch, you nasty little shut-in bastard.

      Ah, authentic Mikemikev or at least a very good impersonation. Mike can correct me if I'm wrong. So far, he has never lied to me. This is his point of view, and he has a point, though I disagree with much of it. overall, strongly. He is not lying.

    15. Is Mikemikev now trying to blame his 1000th sock

      It would be preposterous to claim that Glamour Sickle was Oliver and there is no sign that MMV did it.

    16. the user boxes on that page.

      The real offense of Glamour Sickle, who might actually be what he claimed to be, was pointing out that Oliver Smith was ... well, what he is. I don't agree that this showed it was Mikemikev, there could have been many people who would have put that up. It could have been Emil Kirkegaard would be the first suspicion. it could have been me, except I'm not editing RatWikl, and I would not create a fake account pretending to be what I am not -- except I might pretend to not be me! But then I would certainly not use such an account for what this user used it for.

    17. occasionally get Nazis email me

      He gets emails from idiots. Meaningless. But wait, he was going to stop commenting here.

    18. I'm an "SJW Antifa"

      He would assume that from Oliver's use of RatWiki. It has nothing at all to do with impersonations. Oliver has never shown anything credible that would matter, that would affect how somone like Welton would see hijm. And Oliver wrote the article on Welton, and left out the most interesting (for RatWiki) fact, that article that was actually more about RatWiki than about Oliver, even though it doxxed him. That made Oliver more notable than many of those he has created articles on. How long will he be uniquely protected?

    19. other people now repeat his lies without fact-checking

      How does it feel, Oliver? That is exactly what happens to others with the defamation you posted. But I have not seen any sock blamed on Oliver that could have been Mikemikev. Oliver is criticized for what Oliver clearly did, and here he is "blaming it all on Mikemikev," which, above, he denied doing.

    20. any point in wasting more time rebutting him

      Well, if an error actually matters, Oliver could comment on the blog. I have never refused his right to correct errors, which is very much unlike him. He was Skeptical who blocked me for being attacked, and who complained to David Gerard, more than once, to obtain sanctions. Fascist asshole.

    21. Gab comments

      this is routine for Oliver, he links to pages that work when he links them, but that are updated and meaningless later. He does it with my blog all the time.

    22. You know what we do with rabid dogs

      Charming, isn't he?

    23. a vicious dog

      The term is attack dog, a name for a disruptive account tolerated by a faction that finds it useful, but that can then back away if needed, if the dog goes too far.

    24. 10:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC) Mikemikev, hi!

    25. I won't be leaving any more comments

      Oliver must have made comments like this hundreds of times. He held out for ten hours. He put up a DNFTT, template as he continued to feed one or two trolls. One shows up immediately..

    26. Anti racist skinhead


      I wrote "agenda Oliver, but different, probably Darryl." There are only six contributions, so this is not strong. The agenda is very clearly Oliver. But I also see moderately clear signs it is not Oliver, Hence I suspect Darryl, but it could be someone else. Very unlikely to be Mikemikev, what would be the point of attacking his friend? Oliver's fuss is about not wanting to be called an "Anti racist skinhead." But he hasn't been, not by me, and an account name is not the person. It could be a joke, as Oliver often points out. Or reality, or sarcastic, or a deliberate combination, such as Schizophrenic, which was definitely Oliver, not any doubt about it.

    27. AntifaGuy

      Contributions I stand with this being "very likely Oliver." The account does not resemble Mikemikev at all. It shows clear signs of being Oliver, so if this was MMV, it was a very skillful impersonation, but to what end? I just reviewed the edits again, and this was definitely not Mikemikev, it makes no sense.'definitely Oliver, so I have removed the hedge.

    28. called you an Antifa

      I think that Dysklyver has called himself a Marxist Antifa, so this is meaningless, having nothing to do with what happened before. Antifa has not been uncommon on RatWiki.

    29. in name are obviously his

      Obvious to Oliver with his schizo superpowerz.

    30. he still believes in that conspiracy theory

      I "believe iin" just about nothing when Oliver is involved. He (and/or his brother) have created massive confusion over the years, lying and impersonating and disrupting, that little is certain. But Oliver is certainly a "Smith brother," and it appears there are at least three, but only two that have been suspected of being involved, from the early communications on Wikipedia. That is, there are Smith brothers. Oliver denies being many of the accounts, and acknowledged to me the existence of his brother and that most accounts were his brother. And then he went completely bonkers. Indeed, who does he think he's fooling?

    31. think he is fooling

      I have no intention to fool anyone. If I make a mistake, it's a mistake and I will correct it. But I do not conclude that something is a mistake because a known and admitted liar (There is no brother, it was all me, lying about it.) -- try parsing that leaving Oliver as not a liar. Good luck. If you can do it, I worry about your sanity.)

    32. not me

      Ah,but Oliver is obsessed with Mikemikev,has been for years.

    33. rolling Lowles

      Oliver admits he follows Mike obsessively. This is utterly beside the point. Anyone could create an account with that name, honestly or sarcastically. I look at the accounts's contributions far more than the name. A name may give hints.

    34. read about him here,

      And so Oliver cites an ED article he created as if it means something. He has absolutely no shame.

    35. Wyatt is as deranged

      RaiderFan was blocked months later by Oliver's brother as Wyatt, in his deletion/blocking spree, (blamed on me, supposedly I hacked the account) citing a Wrongpedia page. I recovered it. On that page, Oliver wrote what was attributed above to MDS, and then he also claimed that RaiderFan was Merkel, who was also blocked by DS in that spree. The quote cited as by MDS was on User talk:Merkel, posted by ODS, but it looks like a signature of JuniusThaddeus, which is deceptive. Oliver is very incautious. However, did JuniusThaddeus write this? Yes. Here it is, at the bottom of this page. Oliver has taken it out of context. It does claim identity, but that identity would not be a cause for block, necessarily. It also says a great deal that Oliver would rather we not look at, and that could be why he and his brother only quoted their own quotations. MDS was responding to a claim that he was RaiderFan, he attributes to Oliver. Was MDS correct? And does it matter? The account was not an impersonation, and more than one person might follow the same games. At most it was trolling. There had been an attempted cooping of Merkel. It failed. So Darryl simply took an opportunity when there was massive confusion that he created to block. And nobody cleaned that up.

    36. impersonation of me

      Raider Fan was not an impersonation of Oliver, this is obvious. The account was trolling him, by using an old account name. The Smiths have also done this, with me. Nobody would think that Raider Fan was Oliver, therefore it was not an impersonation.

    37. full of defamation

      that is a judgment, and he does not admit that, but he tried to get the articles deleted because he knew that a court might find them defamatory -- or he was willing to have truthful articles deleted just to satisfy Kirkegaard. And if that was his thinking, no wonder he failed. The Rats would want to keep truthful articles. So, was it truthful to claim that Kirkegaard was a "child rape apologist" or not? The evidence cited shows not, if one actually reads it without going ballistic from the first words, i.e,. reading them out of literal and temporal context.

    38. been creating articles

      That is, eventually he admitted creating the articles.

    39. changes his political views

      No such change has been shown. Oliver doesn't know my political views, as far as I know.

    40. "Blaming it all on Mikemikev"

      Oliver misses that he has blamed much on Mikemikev that was not him, starting with many socks of his brother. He is quoting the title of a page, intended as a brief summary, not as a literal "all." Oliver is not responsible for Mikemikev's antisemitic comments, for example.

    41. Lomax is a very dishonest person

      The hard part is finding a neutral observer willing to waste time looking at Oliver's trash and reviews of it.

    42. This made me laugh

      Unfortunately, Oliver's laughing is contempt, never good for heatlh.

    43. won't comment on Mikemikev's edit

      He did not actually link to the edit. None of this would make sense to anyone else. In any case, I found it, and it was hilarious, actually, for ED. Here is Oliver's edit removing the change, but it was not a simple revert of Mikemikev's edit, and Oliver had been revert warring over pieces of Mikemikev's joke. I had trouble finding it because the description was not clear. The change by MMV had been made the day before and expanded with Oliver's address and photo. This was a classic and very obvious ED piece of buffonery.

    44. he didn't respond

      respond where? Oliver is utterly incoherent.

    45. that are gibberish

      If I want to create gibberish on my blog, the problem is? No, it's not gibberish, it is material that sets Oliver off.

    46. just troll him back

      In spite of many years of internet experience, Oliver has not learned that "trolling back" is a formula for convincing everyone you are an idiot. Oliver listed his accounts as being Mikemikev. There were many, Octo was merely emphasized and prominent. And he left that material in the article. What I got to was his RWW article, annotated here. This was on the face written to inform RatWiki users of the situation.

    47. the edit Mikemikev made

      He does not link to that edit and it is difficult to find it.

    48. was this edit,

      Oliver does not link so that his claims can be easily checked. That's normal. Here is that edit.

    49. view his latest insanity and lies here:

      thanks for the link, Every little bit helps. That is actually a quote from him. The only "lie" would be, perhaps, calling it a deception when it was, he claims, a joke. If Emil Kirkegaard posts a photo showing someone making a nazi salute, that's, per Oliver, proof that he is a neo-Nazi, even though it was obviously a joke, but if he posts something that accuses another of being a sock master, it's a joke and anyone who thinks he is serious is lying. Except I did not think he was serious. This was merely the most prominent of a series of sock claims, covered on a subpage. Oliver Smith has claimed impersonations and then one might think we would see them on the page he compiled. Instead, we see a list of his own socks, many of them. And his brothers' socks I haven't gotten to that. All pinned on Mikemikev with no evidence at all.

    50. Tobias (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

      Comments on the above are found on the CFC page, Tobias.

    1. many each day:

      Not all days. I will go over this list elsewhere and come back. I will categorize the accounts according to what is known about them. I have never compiled a complete list of AP accounts, nor of specific Oliver accounts.

    2. a significant portion

      That could be read as an overstatement. By restating it with only a little more emphasis, Oliver convinces that they are all being accused of being Smith socks. However, being careful about "significant" -- a few percent would be significant -- this is true or not far from the truth. That activity is focused in some narrow areas, so in those areas, the impact is large.

    3. a lot of time on his hands.

      Do remember there are two brothers. I have used editing studies to identify Darryl socks, but have not yet used them to compare Oliver and Darryl. It's work, it takes time, but it yields very interesting data.

    4. now editing Encyclopedia Dramatica to blame his socks on Mikemikev.

      Yes, and it is very useful to compare that with clear independent evidence. Oliver is being sued, and as Aeschylus, he admitted to being the creator of many articles, and that then allows clear identification of those old accounts as Oliver. It was already obvious, by the way, so this merely confirmed what anyone could see by the duck test. So the ED editing, by MrStrong, clearly and unmistakeable Oliver, shows how Oliver lies in order to attack Mikemikev -- and to attempt to cover up his prior activities.

    5. e

      Any may not be. The impersonations of me were probably Darryl, not Oliver.

    6. Oliver Smith regularly doxxes his victims while at the same time accusing his victims of doxxing and impersonating Oliver Smith while at the same time claiming not to be Oliver Smith.

      Oliver is truly insane; but his brother Darryl is vicious, and my general suspicion is that most of the impersonation socking is from Darryl, and that Oliver does not necessarily know that, so blames it on whatever target is handy. Of late, Mikemikev. But Oliver has also accused Mikemikev of being the owner of accounts that were clearly his, I'm documenting that now.

    7. might be Oliver himself impersonating

      It is unlikely, but Oliver claimed at one point that there was no brother, it was all him, lying from the beginning, back on Wiikipedia. Then he sort-of retracted that, saying "you'll just have to figure it out." We did. Whichever way you sliced it, Oliver lies. (He then claims the lies were harmless.)

    8. Oliver David Smith sockpuppets

      the page is misnamed, which creates a basis for Oliver to attack it. It should be "Smith brothers sockpuppets." That would cover both sets of accounts.

    1. A hydrino reactor

      This has nothing to do with LENR. Long ago, Mill prposed hydrinos as an explanation for LENR. This would not explain helium production or other transmutationjs at all. If Mills work is real, good for him, but not LENR.

    2. Global Energy Corp. Technical Report

      This report is of high interest, but is also not peer-reviewed, but published by a LENR enterprise.

    3. the entire volume of the journal in question

      In many cases, I have split out the papers. I'll add links in the annotations.

    4. is LENR a revolutionary new form of energy, or merely a new chapter in the long and sordid annals of pseudoscience?

      Again, a black and white comparison. First of all, the author is conflating pseudoscience with "pathological science," which is itself vague. Cold fusion is not pseudoscience, period, though some people may hold some pseudoscientific beliefs about it -- such as the idea that "it" is "impossible," without even having a definition of "it." Is it impossible that there is something not understood?

    5. exactly is the theoretical framework behind LENR

      While agreement is not universal, there is only one "theoretical" basis that has broad consensus, because of conclusive experimental evidence. The heat in the FP experiment is caused by the conversion of deuterium to helium, mechanism unknown. That is a verifiable hypothesis, already extensively confirmed. Work is under way to confirm it yet again with increased precision. (I.e., the theoretical value for the heat will be 23.8 MeV per helium nucleus formed, regardless of mechanism, if there are no leakages.)

    6. the broader scientific community rejects

      All reviews of the field by responsible agencies and authorities found that research should continue. There has never been a conclusive peer-reviewed review of the field that concluded it was all artifact, error, or worse., But the belief that it was "rejected" is widespread. How did that happen? That is a question for the sociologists of science to address. But a hint: it was not rejected through the methods of science, but of politics and appeal to knee-jerk reactions. In any field, the cost of this can be enormous.

    7. [Levi2014]

      "flawed" is an understatement. The reactor tested was made by Industrial Heat, and they found that they were getting major heat, according to the test method used by Levi et al, with no fuel, a dummy reactor. Levi et al ran no dummy experiment, and used a completely incorrect value for the emissivity of alumina. And, yes, other workers have followed that paper. Parkhomov is one.

    8. credible, peer-reviewed source

      JCMNS is included as a "credible, peer-reviewed source," but this is a specialist journal for the field. It is indeed peer-reviewed, but the quality may vary.

    9. Or is this the start of a new era in energy technology?

      Or is this simply science expanding into previously unexplored territory? The rejection of cold fusion was an "information cascade," where respectable scientists said things they did not know as fact, and others followed their lead. Nearly everyone assumed that if fusion was taking place in the FP experiment, that it must be d-d fusion. After all, what else could it be? Why the example of MCF did not suggest that maybe there was something not understood about the conditions is beyond me. There is a recent shift in understanding that could explain why it was so difficult to replicate the work. It was believed that there were two phases of palladium deuteride, but in 1993, two more were discovered. Those phases normally form only at very high pressure, but might form in small quantities, "adventitiously" at STP. If those are necessary for the reaction, it only happened more or less accidentally. But we don't know yet.

    10. lack of a well-understood theoretical framework

      So, if something is difficult to understand, therefore it doesn't exist and we should give up studying it? What kind of science is this? My physics professor had words for this: cargo cult science. And yes, that was my professor.

    11. “cold fusion” was debunked long ago

      Well, where was the review paper that showed that? It never happened, whereas many peer-reviewed reviews in mainstream journals have, of late, been assuming the reality of the effects. So the "general opinion" is simply ignorant.

    12. claims steadily improving results

      Results have indeed improved, that's measurable. But it is a very difficult field, still.

    13. Unlike solar

      Satellite solar power is independent of such conditions. But short of that, I expect that a sustainable energy economy could store solar energy as released hydrogen to be re-combined with oxygen on demand.

    14. radioactive byproducts.

      The hybrid fusion/fission design uses the less dangerous U-238, so it should be much safer than standard fission reactors. Most research approaches are as described, very little radiation is measured and while some transmutations do seem to occur, there appears to be some suppression of radioactive products. There is a great deal that is not well-known and understood.

    15. only as a catalyst)

      How much is needed is unclear. Again, until we have reliable devices, what the workers in the field call a "lab rat," it's difficult to predict costs.

    16. a few grams of inexpensive materials such as hydrogen

      The original work was with palladium deuteride, which is quite an expensive material. Using nickel hydride, far less expensive, is controversial, and much of the fuss about it was based on the fraudulent claims of Andrea Rossi, which fooled many who ought to have known better.

    17. greenhouse gas emission or pollution

      Likely not. But, gain, the devil is in the details, that we don't have yet. As one example, a present commercial effort is to create a hybrid fusion/fission reactor for space applications that uses a cold fusion cell to generate neutrons (yes, some of them do that under some conditions!) which are then used to fission U-238. Which would produce radioactive products....

    18. Systems can be scaled up from very small units to very large systems

      This is almost a tautology, but overlooks a problem. Yes, a small system, with decent energy density, can be scaled up by multiplying it up. However, what's the reliability? If a cell generates heat for a day and then stops, commercial application could be problematic, it would depends on many variables.

    19. commercially significant heat is output

      So far, such claims have been fraudulent. Some legitimate claims are approaching commercial levels, but nothing that I could say will be immediately practical.

    20. would appear to be an ideal energy source

      Well, it could be. We do not know how to control the reaction adequately for commercial application, so we don't yet know exactly what will be required.

    21. not produce measurable amounts of ionizing radiation

      Well, some radiation is observed, but the levels are very low, and nobody has yet correlated radiation with the measured heat. The two correlated effects are heat and de novo helium.

    22. in a condensed matter regime

      In other words, it requires the solid state. (It is probably not possible in liquids and I doubt in gases, either. Rather the effect is seen in metal hydrides/deuterides.

    23. the Coulomb repulsion between protons and undergo fusion.

      The thinking is still hot fusion thinking. The mechanism for FP "cold fusion" is unknown, but most thinking has it be what I've called "molecular fusion," not between raw nuclei, but atoms, the electrons being necessary, and then some theories have a Bose-Einstein condensate form that can fuse through tunneling from the collapsed state, and that has actually been calculated to be possible by Takahashi. But there are many problems still be to resolved, much that is not understood.

    24. nuclear fusion, such as occurs in the center of stars and is the source of the light they produce, requires enormous temperatures

      That was an early error. That fusion normally takes place under such conditions is not evidence that such conditions are required, and there is a very obvious counterexample, fully accepted, muon-catalyzed fusion, which is experimentally created close to absolute zero. That is, a catalyst or catalytic condition can bypass the Coulomb barrier. However, what FP found was not MCF,

    25. science or pseudoscience?

      If an idea is testable, it is not pseudoscientific. The belief that something is impossible is not testable, so there would be the true pseudoscience. There is science here, in abundance. But ordinary reliability is elusive. Nevertheless, science can handle unreliability through correlation.

    26. A number of other researchers

      As many as hundreds, including experts retained to investigate. The effect was difficult to set up, and so there were many replication failures, as well. It is still difficult, but there is conclusive evidence, actually has been since 1991. The effect is nuclear in nature. It is probably not "d-d fusion."

    27. the incompetence

      This goes to show how an eppeal to emotion can completely demolish scientific objectivity. Pons and Fleischmann were extremely competent in their field, and their calorimetry was excellent. Their basic intuition was correct, but they were wrong about much and did not realize how sensitive the effect they found was to precise material conditions.

    28. clearly premature

      Definitely premature. They were not ready to announce, and what they had was a heat anomaly. Their "nuclear evidence" was artifact and error. It was indeed a fiasco.

    29. cold fusion fiasco

      The name was a huge problem, it created many false expectations.

    30. The threat of climate change

      This is, of course, irrelevant to the question.

    31. Science or pseudoscience?

      This question is not answered, I'll comment below on that.

    32. Math Scholar

      The author appears to be David Bailey.

    1. he presents no evidence for this outright lie.

      Oliver also calls simple documentation "lies," but does not point to specific errors, normally. I have seen evidence and I have written about it. I'm not going to keep writing it over and over. This has legal consequences, and Oliver is going to look like an idiot in court, with the "Lies!" refrain.

      The media contact claim came from SkepticDave, referring to the author of two articles that Oliver has admitted writing.SkepticDave was Oliver (Aeschylus), see the block log.

    2. Those were originally added by another editor

      The pedophilia claim was added by Schizophrenic, who was obviously and admittedly Oliver, Years later, there was an attempt to cover this up by claiming Schizophrenic was an impersonation, which is implausible. Oliver is lying here. Notice who blocked Schiizophrenic and when, and then the block log for the blocking admin, identifying him with Aeschylus, which was Oliver without any doubt.

    3. for a judge or court to decide

      Legally, yes. However the rest of us also have the right to our assessment of evidence and opinion. Oliver has lied about me many times and his best defense might be insanity. He's claiming indigence through his lawyer, and Aspberger's syndrome. And that he has no money, so it's useless to sue him. But Kirkegaard is not out for money, rather, his reputation has been heavily damaged, and that can be seen in all the articles based on the "child rape apologist" lie, articles pointed to by Oliver as proof of his claims.

    4. claims without evidence I've "defamed" Kirkegaard

      Oliver defamed Kirkegaard in email to me. What he did with RatWiki accounts might be denied, but not the email to me, from a known Oliver Smith email account.

    5. shown my lawyer all of Mikemikev's impersonations

      Wasting his time. Very expensive and not very bright.

    6. he's trying to blame his Reddit attacks on Kirkegaard onto me

      Oliver, above, claimed I had "blamed" the Kirkegaard attacks on him. Actually, I didn't. See the commentary on the post I added.

      Oliver is this inaccurate in most of his "research."

    7. trying to cause me legal trouble

      This would not cause him legal trouble, unless it could be proven it was him, in which case it could still be difficult.

    8. Mikemikev's and Abd increased trolling activity is because they know

      I see little or no sign of Mikemikev activity on Reddit. I don't know what is in Mike's mind, but I do know what is in mine, and Oliver's fantasy is completely incorrect. I have responded on Reddit because I was attacked there, then I also responded to a two-week old post from VDARE and was immediately attacked. The Smiths track my posts and respond very rapidly. This could be Darryl instead of Oliver, but the flooding of the VDARE post certainly looks like Oliver. But so what?

    1. linking to Reddit.

      Yes. The ones I saw pointed to this subreddit about Oliver D. Smith, where an account attempted to bury the comments with over a hundred spammed denials that accounts were Smith. Mikemikev would be very unlikely to do this, he'd want it that news article to be as visible as possible. I am analyzing this material and cannot give a definitive answer yet to who this was, but it certainly looks like the Smith brothers have been very active on Reddit, and for years, with many accounts. This is not Mikemikev.

    2. accounts of Mike

      Oliver has made many enemies. When one trolls him, he blames the current favorite, at this point it is Mikemikev. It was not me, and I also have not edited Wikipedia since 2011 (two IP exceptions by accident years ago)

    3. claiming it is me

      I did not claim it was him. Oliver has claimed to be schizophrenic, which could mean that he interprets what he reads the way he expects. I wrote "This is one of many recent posts around enemies of Oliver Smith posted by throwaway accounts." (see archive)

    4. creates an account attacking

      Classic Oliver. He might not be lying about the Reddit accounts, because it might be his brother. That Mikemikev would attadk Kirkegaard is quite unlikely, because Oliver has already attacked Kirkegaard so often that another would make no difference.

    1. it will be good

      I'm not at all convinced that Oliver has the capacity to stop. He has been doing this for many years.

    2. drama with the other banned troll

      It's obvious. Oliver should not touch accounts he believes are Mikemikev with a ten-foot pole. He can let the RW community deal with disruption. He should not be promoting users based on "suspicion." He might even be right, but it becomes a personal issue and will encourage Mikemikev to persist. It becomes a hobby, and it is easier to create disruption than it is to stop it and clean it up. That is why DNFTT.

    3. I just thought RWW would be a good place to document all his abuse.

      Oliver has started blogs, but Oliver does not clearly distinguish between reality and his own fantasies. He used RWW because nobody was restraining him. What I found recently was that Oliver attacked Mikemikev on Metapedia. Essentially, he started it. Oliver presents himself as the victim, but does not understand that he cannot then be the prosecutor. Whatever Mikemikev has done, Oliver has done it more,. He was right to retire from Metapedia, claiming mental illness. This kind of continual conflict is terrible for hm. But he keeps feeding it, trolling for more response, -- and going after more and more people.

      And his brother doesn't help. The brothers came to my attention because of Darryl impersonation socking, and then Oliver's original account was mentioned because I was able to connect the impersonation socking to Anglo Pyramidologist, which was Oliver's Wikipedia account, but merely the name of the sock puppet investigation page, because they were, over the years, treated as one. Darryl kept attacking, which convinced me I was onto something. Oliver, however, is far more obvious as crazy.

      And Oliver lied to the WikieMedia Foundation, apparently. I had not harassed him, and had not outed him. Later, yes, I concluded that the internet was right, this was Oliver and Darryl Smith. after they had arranged my promotion and ban on RatWiki.

      If that were all of it, I'd walk away.... but it's not.

    4. These irrational beliefs are the result of psychosis

      Oliver should know, but he doesn't. It is always someone else who is crazy, unless he's being sued, in which case, his argument is that he is disabled. Or he lets his attorney make that argument.

    5. nothing to do with me

      Well, Oliver created offensive, libelous content there and because it was allowed, Wikia shut RWW down. At least that is the most likely explanation, and what Oliver is doing here is showing that he thinks Spud blames him. And that understanding of human relations is typical of Oliver. It's all about feuds and spats and revenge and payback.

    6. that's Mike again

      Yes, that looks like Mike. But, again, it could be any of many racists. RatWiki encourages trolling, in fact, through the reaction. Skilled wiki admins will just WP:RBI: revert, block, ignore. DNFTT, except that Rats love feeding trolls.

      If you really want to create disruption, block someone and lie about them. Some people (especially women) will walk away, but with males, in particular, I've seen the disruption continue for many years with a thousand socks, countless hours wasted, And they those who keep stoking the fire suggest that the blocked user should "grow up."

      What I saw on RatWiki over the years was that as users matured, they left. There are a few who are what I'd call sober and thoughtful.

    7. 4 May 2019 (UTC)

      John66 is Oliver's brother Darryl. The evidence is overwhelming. Darryl was very, very active as Skeptic from Britain on Wikipedia, and had been very active for years with other accounts. He was probably being paid. So it is unlikely that he would suddenly decide to retire. Just before bailing from Wikipedia, he set up John66, attacking the same person on RatWiki as he had attacked on Wikipedia, and the edits dovetailed. And I have much, much more evidence.

    8. "Susan" is Mike

      There are dozens of people Tobias has offended. There was noting about Susan to specially indicate Mikemikev. This could be Michaeldsuarez, could be Emil Kirkegaard, could be me (except it wasn't! and I don't edit RatWiki just to make some snarky comment) but it could be GethN7 or John Fuerst or any of the people Tobias was trolling on his user page.

      One of the claims the Smiths make about me is that I make accusations without evidence. In fact, I present evidence, if anything, too much evidence. Tobias just makes accusations, as with this.

    9. Mike often impersonates me on this wiki

      I have yet to find a confirmed and true "impersonation' of Oliver. Schizophrenic was claimed to be an impersonation and obviously was not. Schizophreniac was also unlikely. Oliver wrote an autobiography, describing himself as he wants to be seen -- from many conversations -- and then used it to accuse Mikemikev of impersonation. Mikemikev creates parody socks, which are not impersonations as such, if nobody would be fooled into thinking it was the target. Yet clear impersonations of me have been put up, and the Rats believed it was me. Now, that's impersonation.

    10. The 300, 600 or 1000 figure is exaggerated from Abd's troll blog

      Again, that story is told. The numbers don't come from me. At one point, a Smith sock -- not sure which one yet -- claimed about 700 RatWiki accounts. Oliver claimed that of the accounts I was listing, as "Anglo Pyramidologist" only 0.1% were him. Since he was obviously a few accounts, and if he was telling the truth, that would make thousands of accounts. But that was not my claim. AP was the two brothers, not just Oliver. And There were many many accounts created impersonating me, and apparently others. Oliver may claim these were Mikemikev, but in some cases, that is very unlikely. But impersonation socking doesn't seem to be Oliver's game, so those many impersonation accounts would not count for his total.

      Smith socks make claims but don't provide links. I have always asked for corrections, and comment is open on the blog, but they don't point to errors, they just cry "Lies!"

      I have started many times to make a comprehensive list of socks for Oliver and Darry,l, and it's always been too much work. So far.

    11. I've had somewhere between a dozen and two dozen accounts since

      I am not convinced I have found all of them, but two dozen for Oliver might be about right.

    12. retired and bored

      Well, the academic freedom of Wikiversity was attacked by Oliver's brother, and heavily damaged. Topics involved are trillion-dollar issues, which Rats think are jokes. I was threatened with deletion of everything I'd written -- years of work -- if I didn't stop exposing what had happened, which at that point was relatively minor disruption, I had no idea what I would find later. This has affected the lives of many, and it is accomplished through deception, impersonation, and defamation. That's important to me. Because I know what I know, I have an obligation to communicate it. It is not up to me what people do with it, but these trolls lie, and they do it right here.

    13. 02:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

      And that day, Oxyaena took Greenrd to the Coop to pursue Oliver's agenda. What was this "new leaf"?

      Most Rats do not understand the hereditarian/environmentalist debate and just pop for "racist."

    14. Never thought I'd see the day.

      He may have been referring to this, but this was not a change of position.

    15. Not convinced
    16. any misbehavior

      There has been plenty,. see Tobias. But, I suspect, Oliver has a level of protection, it's been obvious for a long time. So Dysklyver might be reluctant to pull the plug.

    17. Your userpage

      See hypothes.is which annotates the user page as it was.

      Oliver has admitted many things and then later claimed he was being sarcastic, even if this was implausible in context. This userpage was an an attempt to strengthen that argument. It's a joke, get it?. But he actually does or is much of what he wrote.

    18. the same mistake as before

      Oliver has been repeating old behavior, seeing The Enemy underneath every new account, if it doesn't agree completely with his position. See Tobias

    1. mentally ill
    2. please send me cash by PayPal.

      Oliver is not known to have been paid for his writing. His brother has been, probably.

    3. character assassinating, cyber-stalking

      Oliver does "character assassinate", cyberstalk, and harass his enemies, obsessively

    4. Edward Dutton

      All the names listed in rotation are ones Oliver has created RatWiki articles on, under Tobias or other names. [[Nathan Cofnas]]| [[Edward Dutton]]| [[Michael A. Woodley of Menie]]| [[John Fuerst]]| [[Noah Carl]]

    5. atanist

      I've never seen this one.

    6. sexual antinatalist

      Oliver has claimed both at various times

    7. santhrope

      a reasonable description of much of his behavior

    8. schizophrenia

      Oliver also claimed schizophrenia, as Atlantid, no doubt about it.

    9. character assassinate innocent people

      He does create articles to defame, innocent or not.

    10. live off welfare in my mother's basement

      He does live with his parents, apparently does not have a job, and does receive government benefits.

    11. a day's work in my life

      Probably not true! He certainly earned a degree in classics.

    12. User:Tobias

      Tobias is Oliver D. Smith, there is no doubt, it is well-known on RatWiki.

    1. race differences in IQ

      Whether this comment is racist or not depends on what "race" means. It is definitely a social category, and there are differences in IQ between social categories. And then, as well, what is "IQ"? Strictly speaking, it's a test score. The subject is complex and Cofnas is correct that it is important, and also that the topic is banned. And that is a problem. However, Oliver is appealing to knee-jerk reactions, the very "political correctness" that Cofnas laments. Key to all this is the hereditarian vs. environmentalist debate. How much of intelligence is genetic and how much is a result of environment, and, even more to the point, how significant are genetic differences associated with "race" in determining performance? And then there are the political considerations. Suppose Group A is, on average, genetically disabled as to intelligence. Or environmentally, and does it matter which?

      How should this affect public policy? Society has been moving strongly toward treating people as individuals, not based on membership is some group.

    1. he overlap between us is actually very minor.

      This was largely true, my impression. But "minor" is not defined. They apparently both filed complaints to the WMF. Is that "overlap"?

      The patterns are usually distinct, though there are a few cases of accounts where I was sure that it was one of them, but not so sure which one it was. I do have means to discriminate. For example, ODS is obviously Oliver, not Darryl, even aside from the name.

    2. The allegations of "harassment" are of course nonsense - we've simply used this wiki to document and debunk pseudoscientists.

      I have seen and documented many examples of clear harassment, getting the mother of an enemy fired, as an example, one of my children was sent an email accusing me: "I don't know if he is a pedophile, but he's defending one."

      And. of course, there was this article, clearly written as revenge for daring to stand up to their harassment of another. I am not a "pseudoscientist," by any stretch. I'm an advocate of research, not untestable belief, and I'm recognized as that, published under peer review, in a mainstream journal.

      These trolls know nothing about cold fusion, just that it is "pseudoscientific," but that's not the position in the journals, nor is it the position of both DoE reviews, nor is it the position of the RatWiki article on cold fusion.

      From that article: "There are credible scientists working on fusion at less than millions of degrees, but they tend to avoid the term "cold fusion."

      I know almost all the "credible scientists," and most of them support my work. The term is generally avoided, and the main reason for that is that the word "fusion" creates associations that were misleading. I.e, this is not your grandfather's fusion. But it is fusion, that has been shown beyond a reasonable doubt. And how we know that is what my article was about.

    3. Viharo spreads a rumour, that my brother is "paid" by a skeptic organisation.

      Actually, I found a claim from Darryl that he was being paid, many years ago. It's plausible. As well, Oliver, when he claimed he had been lying for years, that there is no active brother, it was all him -- this is shown in the emails hosted on my site -- included that he had lied to Tim Farley. Why mention Tim Farley?

      Because Farley would have been a connection with JREF, which is an organization that might support what Darryl does. And then there was Oliver's earlier comment that his brother might be paid. His brother has done a huge amount of work "debunking." It is quite plausible that he might be paid.

      It is not "random" people. It starts with primary targets, like Rupert Sheldrake, and then extends to anyone who interferes with that agenda, which would be Rome Viharo, and myself. I was heavily attacked before any possible allegations of doxxing. (Identifying possible sock puppets is not doxxing, that's well understood, except that the Smiths have successfully gotten people blocked on RatWiki for pointing to sock puppets.)

    4. It's obvious to anyone the guy is a notorious troll and internet harasser

      Or the target of two trolls, who successfully gets administrators and officials to do his bidding.This has happened over and over, they file complaints, and multiple complaints? Must be real. Ban. It has worked many times.

    5. I wish you people would take your drama, your feuds

      The problem, GC, is that the article and massive drama was created by the Smith brothers. I made one brief comment. This continued, and Oliver Smith is still creating disruption on RatWiki. Darryl is much more stable, but vicious in a deeper way. Most impersonation socking is likely Darryl.

    6. That does look like a legal threat, all right, but not posted here, except, of course, by "ODS," identity obvious.

      This was me, I think, editing by IP.

    7. he now posts a bogus legal threat threatening to sue loads of people, including myself.

      I wrote that it was possible. He is actually being sued, by another target. This "post" was a comment pn the post announcing the CFC wiki -- which has now been opened up and is taking off -- and I made that comment immediately on learning of the global ban.

    8. the families of various wiki editors, including mine

      The Smith brothers were known as Anglo Pyramidologist on Wikipedia, and were treated as if one. I have certainly not "harassed" them, but I documented what they have been doing for years. There was no actual "house address" published, but a street and postal code, that was up for one day. This is hardly harassing families, and there was no phone number given. Oliver Smith has filed a long series of requests for Google to suppress search results, against many sites. He is highly disruptive and has offended many, and some of them talk about it, then he plays victim.

    9. He's also sent me about a dozen harassing emails

      And that is a lie. He emailed me, so I responded. Oliver is literally insane. (But ODS was openly Oliver.)

    10. (19 articles in total

      There are a lot more than that! Basically, I use hypertext for deep studies, and this is one frikkin' complicated situation, spanning many years of internet disruption, long before I was involved.

      The chickens are coming home to roost. Later, Oliver tried to get some of the articles he had written taken down, because he is being sued.

    11. it was very poorly formatted

      The blog has pages of many kinds. Many pages are simply compilations of links. They are not "articles." The blog also has the only collection of case files for Rossi v. Darden, and it has every issue of the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear science and archives of all ICCF conference proceedinds and related materials.

      It serves its purpose. It is also incidentally used to document this "Anglo Pyramidologist" mess.

    12. he spams them onto this website on sock-puppet accounts

      Nope. Almost every claimed incident like that was impersonation socking, probably by Darryl.

    13. n the US, everyone accused of a crime (including pedophiles) is entitled to a legal defense.

      Bongolian noticed. But Bongolian also swallowed their lies. He applied sysoprevoke to my RatWiki account when they accused me of hacking Debunking spiritualism (Darryl Smith). In fact, Darryl used that to conceal a series of blocks and deletions, hiding places where Oliver had revealed the brother relationship.

    14. cyberstalking Rationalwiki members by posting their families

      Basically, one day I had an image that is also found in many places on the interet, giving the occupants of the Smith residence, showing the names, ages, and a street. I took it down, redacted all the toher names except for the trolls, Oliver and Darryl. Oliver is well known, Darryl much less, but notice that "El Badboy" is acknoweldging that what I put up was info on a RatiojnalWiki user. Great. Which ones?

      But this again is typical with their hit pieces: an incident is conflated into a pattern. Instead of "did," and the siingular, it becomes "does" as if this were being done constantly. They are only talking about themselves.

    15. He also said he would legally defend a pedophile

      If I were a lawyer assigned one as a client. They take everything out of context.

    16. He has also admitted to being a "friend" Ben Steigmann for "years", but does not mention Steigmann's holocaust denial. Convenient.

      This is total BS. I knew Ben because of a conversation with a Nobel Prize winner in which Ben wanted to study parapsychology, so I set up the resource for him, for it to be neutral and thus allowable on Wikiversity. I had never discussed politics or controversial issues with him, never talked with him other than with a very little email. Steigmann later told me he had been a racist but had abandoned that. These trolls dig up whatever dirt they can from the past of their targets, whatever will look bad, and they also attack anyone who helps their enemies in any way, even if only to point out the truth in the face of lies. And that is what happened, and why the Smiths came after me.

    17. Previous to his perm block he had been blocked 8 times

      I documented those blocks, in fact, a number of them were meaningless. I was blocked several times by a rogue sysop, I got his tools removed. I was in good standing for quite some time when rather abruptly blocked, and this is a pattern for the Smiths. Private complaints.

    18. o get banned from everywhere.

      That is the impression they want to create, and they do create it, through private complaints. That is what the Wikliversity bureaucrat claimed, he was acting on private complaints. An individual admin had no authority to ban on Wikiversity, I was simply blocked, for a total bullshit reason, that was obvious. And then I was globally banned, we will get to that.

    19. Abd was blocked on one called "EnergyNeutral"

      Notice how one sock because an example of many. What many? That was a single experiment in 2011, and, done, I never edited Wikipedia again.

      I'm a journalist, I don't want to write anonymously, but that is all these trolls do! Except we see ODS -- Oliver D. Smith, showing up here. He has been many, many accounts on RatWiki, confirmed and admitted, and now he is Tobias.

    20. admit to being in the wrong

      I've been active since the 1980s on-line. I had rarely been banned, and that is still the case. I was banned on Wikipedia, not on any other WMF wiki and not on any other wiki at all. Etc. They are lying to the RatWiki community.

      On LENR Forum I did declare a boycott and was immediately banned. "You can't quit, you're fired." So I started working on my own blog, and never looked back. It's been profitable, far better than wasting my time on LENR Forum, which was not a place to build content.

    21. Zeus46

      Is Zeus46 a "guy" or an anonymous troll? There is a LENR Forum user by that name, but also an RatWiki accounts shows up and recent trolling on the cold fusion community. All these accounts with exactly the same party line.

    22. trying to remove negative things he wrote about people on other websites

      what things, where? What who are these people? It's very obvious. They are Oliver and Darryl Smith, ant his is almost all Darryl. Certainly Oliver later claimed that. But Oliver shows up on this page.

    23. says it is 'harassment'

      where did I say that?

    24. If he is so concerned about getting in trouble

      where have I been "concerned for getting in trouble"?

    25. He will not doubt complain this has been archived as well.

      Actually, I used the archiving times to identify these trolls. However, this was very much not good for Schroeder. I was able to get that Thunderbolts post taken down, but, again, because of the archiving. . .

    26. bd claims he is a victim of 'skeptic harassment'

      That is not my term, it is theirs, but this is not about "skeptics," and these trolls abuse RatWiki as an attack platform to go after personal enemies.

    27. the slander

      I called Schroeder a pseudoskeptic, but it was hardly an "attack." And these trolls, we will see, readily call even scientists "pseudoscientists." IN fact, they are haters, and created the RatWiki article as revenge for exposing their impersonation socking on Wikipedia and attacks on Wikiversity.

    28. if he tries to remove it.

      The purpose of these trolls was not to protect Schroeder, but to defame me. I removed that post and also got a forum copy deleted, but because of the archiving, they remained available.

  2. Apr 2019
    1. I live off welfare in my mother's basement

      He does live with his parents, apparently does not have a job, and does receive government benefits.

    2. RationalWiki articles to character assassinate

      He does create articles to defame, innocent or not.

    3. schizophrenia

      Oliver also claimed schizophrenia

    4. asexual antinatalist

      Oliver has claimed both at various times

    5. harassing Edward Dutton

      All the names listed in rotation are ones Oliver has created RatWiki articles on, under Tobias or other names.

    6. character assassinating, cyber-stalking

      Oliver does "character assassinate" and cyberstalk his enemies, obsessively

    7. User:Tobias

      Tobias is Oliver D. Smith, there is no doubt, it is well-known on RatWiki.

    1. "I believe because it is absurd" dogma

      As is also common, Welton confuses faith (which is a condition of the heart) with belief (which is about ideas of truth).

    2. key aspects of Somali-Muslim culture—head-scarfed

      Many Muslims believe -- or simply trust -- that women are religiously obligated to cover their heads. This has zero relevance to her being loyal or patriotic. Further, there is the matter of her oath of office, which Islam requires her to honor. It's Qur'an, fundamental. Welton is ignorant of Islam.

    3. new psychological research suggests this is wrong.

      He will cite research that is interesting, to be sure -- he is a skilled writer, but that has no application to the core issue here because there is no intrinsic conflict, as there is with the research he will cite.

    4. a group in which those who are not in your clan are potentially your enemies

      Anyone from a tribal society. But is she "identifying" with that group? He is claiming that nobody from a different culture could be an American, which means he has a fixed idea of what American culture is, when we rejected that long ago. Most of us, that is.

    5. the clitorises of young girls, almost certainly including that of Rep. Omar

      This is utterly offensive. This asshole probably has a filthy penis. But I won't say "almost certainly." Because I really don't know. Maybe he is Jewish, but, then, how could he be a loyal American?

      While female circumcision is common in Somalia, she came from an educated family where it may have been less common, and further, what he describes is the extreme practice. The extreme practice is actually condemned by Muslim scholars. And this is utterly irrelevant and an appeal to prejudice.

    6. the Bible doesn’t agree:

      No, this asshole cites the Bible for his ignorant syllogism. This is true about "two masters" if they are different.

    7. This leads to anxiety.

      OMG. The poor snowflake might be anxious. Therefore the woman should not be allowed to wear a scarf, or she should be removed from our sight.

      Fascist asshole.

    8. Because its wearers are directly stating that in a West-Islam war they will defect.

      Okay, that's a lie. They are wearing an effing scarf, not a declaration of enmity. If she is a true Muslim, and her obligations -- including her oath of office -- were to require her to take it off, she would. The scarf is mentioned in the Qur'an as a mark of being a believer, one who trusts in God, which means nothing other than reality. If is not a declaration of factional affiliation, though fanatics may take it so. (Forcing women to cover is a mark of fanaticism, not Islam.)

    9. you can’t support two opposing teams

      But the sun shines on the just and the unjust. His argument is utterly silly. Yes, there are issues with divided loyalty. But one can commit to more than one thing in life. The problem he is addressing -- it can be a real problem -- arises when there is a conflict between the two. Being an American is not a religious commitment, and we decided long ago to keep religion and nationality separate. That's actually "American." And so Welton is un-American, in a basic way. But many others, born here, are like him. What makes one an "American"? Is it religiion, color of skin, or a particular set of cultural norms. Or is it a declared allegiance to a document, the Constitution? Omar has declared that allegiance, and her religion requires her to honor that oath. Her religion does not require her to violate it. What Welton proposes may be based on what certain "Muslim" fanatics claim. And I have seen this many times, those who hate Islam claim that we, as Muslims,. are obligated to kill "unbelievers," which is the opposite of what is actually in the Qur'an, which only allows fighting in defense, and prohibits harming others beyond immediate necessity. I.e., it requires civilized behavior, or just basic good nature.

    10. questionable for sound reasons.

      He showed not one "sound reason." She has a religion that requires her to honor her oath (and, in addition, to respect and not betray those who give her refuge). The reasons he gives are ignorant, prejudiced, partisan, and flirt with racism.

      This kind of suspicion has been around for a long time. I remember Senator Joseph McCarthy, whose censure was shortly before I came of age. This concept of "American" excluding people who are different is old. I picketed a meeting of the House Un-American Activities Committee when I was a student at Cal Tech. The very name was un-American. We have always been a "melting pot," diverse, though also often falling short of that ideal. Nevertheless, this was our strength, it is what Made America Great.

    11. Even being a Muslim-American, when the U.S. is under attack from Muslim terrorists and when Americans are overwhelmingly Christian, is pretty much impossible.

      I am an American, born here. I am also a Muslim, my religion is rooted in the Qur'an, which is the core. Who the hell is he to say I am impossible? Islam is also under attack from "Muslim terrorists," and they have killed far more Muslims than Americans. He is an idiot.

      (There is no oath of allegiance intrinsic to Islam. There is only a witnessing, a declaration of faith, and, then, a sharing of this.)

    12. You cannot be a Somali-American, because to be an “American” involves rejecting pretty everything that could possibly be associated with Somalia

      He simply makes this up.

    13. I look upon a Roman Catholic as an enemy in his uniform

      And, of course, this was a major argument raised against John F. Kennedy as a Catholic, as it had been raised about Catholics before in American politics. This guy is not merely conservative, he is positively reactionary.

    14. a bit like a spy.

      To someone who is paranoid, for sure. And if someone believes that to be an American, one must betray the truth, one will then consider anyone who stands for truth to be an enemy. Not a great way to live, but this is quite what he is arguing for.

    15. here does indeed exist a “social norm” whereby we strongly dislike and distrust those who appear to support two teams.

      Yes. But this tells us nothing relevant. He is explaining why some people might not trust Omar. Basically, xenopobia and prejudice about Muslim women. He is then collapsing reactivity with intuition, which more properly belongs to a deeper, reflective response that identifies reactivity, makes an assessment of a need for emergency response (which is what reactivity is for), and then chooses functional behavior. He is creating an argument for stupidity.

    16. The only way around this, for foreigners, is a highly exaggerated display of loyalty to the adopted group: the complete rejection of the former group.

      "The only way" is his fantasy. That is never a reality.

    17. should be

      "Should" is a basic ontological error, when not based on the full human intelligence, but only on primitive reactivity. Perhaps he means "we might be expected to." He is correct that this kind of thinking is "normal." That is far from making it wise, promoting life.

    18. Hence people’s reactions to foreigners, and especially foreigners who fail to fully integrate, is so visceral

      Yes. It is literally visceral. Xenophobia is instinctive, my opinion. That does not mean that we "should" be run by it. Xenophobia properly leads to a measure of caution. Out of balance, it can lead to murder and loss, even death for one's entire family.

    19. the existence of a social norm

      There is a social norm. Is it therefore an absolute reality?

    20. You Can’t Root for Both Teams!

      But you can root for more than one team, when one sees the teams as part of a larger team, call it Team Human. The reactive brain sees the world as a zero-sum game, so if one wins, the other loses. It is in that world that the conflict arises. And that is a world that is doomed to misery and failure. As humans, we have a functional mode that is not just that lizard brain, that survival brain, designed for emergency action. We can identify these reactions and choose to follow them or to set them aside, and there is training in how to do this safely. All this is outside of the world he is describing.

    21. n times of serious danger such as war, people who seem to have dual identities are seen as a threat.

      In other words, when in danger we may become xenophobic and reactive. We also might kill someone we see as threatening us.

    22. no different from any other,

      She is obviously different and also the same.

    23. arry a Y chromosome yet be a female

      And who defines these terms? Y chromosome is relatively objective, but is "female" so objective?

      He is defining what he wants as if it were a universal truth, when language itself is invented, not absolute. He believes that his concepts are real. To be sure, this is common!

    24. Swedish people.

      Who defines what is "Swedish"? If someone born in Sweden moves to Africa, can he or she be Swedish and African? And if someone born in African moves to Sweden, can this person be both, or which one are they?

      Welton is demonstrating racialism, which, by the way, is not wrong, in itself, but he is making assumptions about race that show it as real in ways that are no longer accepted, and for good reason. Race remains a social reality, depending on context. There is also population genetics, which is real in a different way. These are conflated and confused.

    25. two very different things at once

      Fundamental ontology: Any two things are the same and they are different.

    26. dogmas we are supposed to accept

      "supposed to" according to what standard? Welton is looking at unexamined assumptions, in the light of other unexamined assumptions, but he thinks of one set of assumptions as true.

    27. Two Masters—Islam and the U.S.?

      The question assumes a contradiction between these masters. What if the two masters had been stated as "God and Country" Or "Christ and the U.S." Or "Reality and Nation"? Or for that matter, "Race and the Constitution?"?

    1. appears

      The link is to my blog, but is defective. (a link that works is this, but this is to all occurrences of a tag.) Elsewhere, I found the page that the author was attempting to cite. Here I am not. The text is confused. I have never seen Oliver write "under his brother's name," but he has mostly claimed his brother is different, and then he claimed that he was lying about that and had been lying for years, then he took it back. Liars lie, no way around it. If a liar says "I'm a liar," a sane answer is "Not always." After all, stopped clock.

    2. They are a democracy that has been overthrown by schizophrenics, psychopaths, deviants, and people who’ve never really grown up.

      Bingo. Right on!

    3. Smith’s targets have done an excellent job in unearthing exactly who is directing a particular “Black Op” of the many that are underway.

      Thanks. Because I stood for an individual targeted by Darryl Smith, I became a target, thus a canary demonstrating a toxic atmosphere. I am happy to stand for truth and honesty, and also for diversity. Which includes what is "politically incorrect," and what is "SJW." It is not advocacy that is so dangerous, it is lying and deception and suppression of divergent points of view. I was an officer in the ACLU at Cal Tech, and I have been attacked for "defending" X and Y and Z. But wait! Isn't the ACLU a "liberal organization"? These so-called SJWs are attacking free speech and those who defend it, which is precisely why I call them "fascist," which causes them to froth at the mouth. So to speak.

    4. destroying Western civilization, facing no consequences whatsoever.

      Or whatever they don't like.

      Indeed, no or few consequences, and they can simply create new accounts, and as long as they can preserve anonymity, they can do this for years. If they learn to align themselves with "site POV," they may warp and distort and lie, and if anyone points it out, they are then blocked and banned, as "POV-pushers," and, on Wikipedia, "not here to build an encyclopedia." And gradually, the community becomes more and more warped, if there are no compensating mechanisms. And any attempt to build such was crushed on Wikipedia.

    5. at least to some extent

      That is a journalistic hedge, a sign of professional writing. The observation is accurate. It is obviously not true for many "Wikipedians," but look at the ones with extremely high edit counts, and high involvement with controversy. Many of them are downright weird.