Hating Sanity: My Very Own Sockpuppet

13 Mar

Someone (and its really not hard to guess who) has created a little sockpuppet site for me. Whomever (ahem) it is has also started sprinkling the blogosphere with spicy comments from ‘me’.

How cool is this? Someone (ahem) is worried enough about what I say to start a whole new blog to sockpuppet me!

I could get annoyed about such a thing but really, we have to look at it this way – I must be making a much bigger impression on someone (ahem) then I thought I was. Enough for them to be really worried about the success I’m having in getting through to people.

But lets not ruin the possible fun here. Lets have a bit of a Cluedo type blog post to work out the suspects….who is ‘kev’????

Is it:

a) JB Handley?

Evidence for: He’s got form for trying to coerce people to his beliefs. He’s also good for a bit of name-calling.
Evidence against: Probably knows I wouldn’t be anything but amused.

b) SueM?

Evidence for: Has the wit.
Evidence against: Lacks the motivation.

c) John Best Jr?

Evidence for? Has been repeatedly made to look foolish by a myriad of people on his own blog and other peoples but as I have adopted a position of purposefully getting in his face, I’ve probably stuck in his brain longer than most. Possibly because I continually post his racist (equates Muslims to terrorists), homophobic (believes homosexuality is a perversion which can be cured by a dose of ‘self-respect’) illogic (believes autism was invented by Eli Lilly in 1931) back in his face.

Lately I pointed out to Joseph that attempting rational debate with John was useless. His two crowning moments for me were when he said that there was no autism in China prior to 1999 (whereupon he was deluged with comments pointing to the many studies that predate 1990, let alone ’99 in China) and that autism didn’t exist before 1931 (whereupon I pointed out the diagnosis for case studies stretching back to the 1880’s) and it was at this point that I referred to him as ‘spectacularly stupid’ by which I meant that I was occasionally in literal awe of how stupid he truly was.

Evidence against: Can someone that stupid have a mildly amusing idea like this?

d) Sigourney Weaver?

Evidence for: Took umbrage at my post disagreeing with her statement that autism is a gift. Also annoyed that I confessed to lusting after Gillian Anderson and Geena Davis as well as her.

Evidence against: Is quite obviously in love with me.

So there we have it. Put on your deerstalkers, sniff your class A narcotic of choice, play the stringed instrument you like the best, indulge in a same sex relationship and claim its platonic, be insufferably condescending all the time and inspire lots of really good black and white movies starring Basil Rathbone.

103 Responses to “Hating Sanity: My Very Own Sockpuppet”

  1. clone3g March 13, 2006 at 01:28 #

    Boy Kev,
    That Sigourney needs help. She knows you’re married right?

  2. Joseph March 13, 2006 at 01:37 #

    The name of the blog ‘Hating insanity’ is a good clue.

    JB Jr. himself has been impersonated recently in his blog. Except in that case it’s really hard to tell who the real JB Jr. is and who the impostor is. The comments are similarly incoherent.

    I think Kev’s impostor (whoever he is, any ideas?) is pretty upset that his arguments have been shown to be bogus.

  3. Jonathan Semetko March 13, 2006 at 02:11 #

    I can’t remember if this is three or four times now that Kev has been sock puppeted, by some pillar of autism advocacy.

    You really seem to drive them a bit crazy, Kev.

  4. Dave Seidel March 13, 2006 at 02:14 #

    I’m sure it’s Best, the writing style (such as it is) gives it away. What a moronic asshat. He can’t muster a coherent argument so he resorts to childish ridicule. jypsy’s been doing a great job taking the piss out of him lately.

  5. David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending) March 13, 2006 at 02:18 #

    I have to say that even *I* found that one peurile.

  6. María Luján March 13, 2006 at 02:28 #

    Hi Kevin
    I assure you that your style is enough known to the people who read your post or has had the privilege to exchange ideas about autism and neurodiversity with you by e-mail-even thinking different like me- to be sure that, although the name posted sometimes is “Kev”, is not you.
    María Luján

  7. David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending) March 13, 2006 at 02:45 #

    Just a thought…. what about Kevin Champagne? Isn’t he a likely candidate for this sort of stunt?

  8. JB Jr is Not Safe for Work March 13, 2006 at 05:56 #

    sockpuppet?

    Here’s a candid shot (standing stupid) of the man from the Power of Truth rally:
    He’s actually pretty sexy (pic is the man without a shirt on in a sexy pose – NOT entirely SAFE for WORK, depending on where you work)

  9. M March 13, 2006 at 10:15 #

    I don’t know about ‘lacks the motivation’; that’s something you could do in about ten minutes in blogger. Doesn’t need much motivation.

    And I love how they don’t just hate people with autism, they hate anyone with any kind of mental health problem. The number of people they hate (given that the stats for mental health issues are 1 in 4, rather than the 1 in 166 for autism) is increasing and increasing. They’ll end up in some sort of gated community with only Their Sort Of People are allowed.

  10. mike stanton March 13, 2006 at 12:18 #

    Have you bothered flagging it to Blogger? I would object on the grounds that it is not very clever and not very funny. You deserve a much better sock than that.

  11. Jemaleddin March 13, 2006 at 13:45 #

    Just to pick a nit: wasn’t Holmes a cocaine injector?

  12. bonni March 13, 2006 at 14:11 #

    Charming. I guess if you can’t prove your point with actual, you know, logic and debate, with any, what’s it called, oh, yeah, scientific evidence, you just resort to petty stunts to try to annoy people who dare to oppose you and your ideas.

    Seems like the ultimate in ad hominem attack to me, and surely a sign of a petty person with too much time on their hands.

    Glad you find it amusing, Kev. I just think it’s stupid and a waste of time, energy, and bandwidth.

  13. bonni March 13, 2006 at 14:27 #

    And I love how they don’t just hate people with autism, they hate anyone with any kind of mental health problem. The number of people they hate (given that the stats for mental health issues are 1 in 4, rather than the 1 in 166 for autism) is increasing and increasing. They’ll end up in some sort of gated community with only Their Sort Of People are allowed.

    Yes, this is another reason I can’t stand the Toxic Parents. The vast majority of them are extremely hateful, bigoted, and appear to be quite mean-spirited. (Note: I’m not saying ALL, but the ones I’ve seen, and the things I’ve seen the Toxic Parents, as a group do and say? Yes, extremelly hateful.)

  14. M March 13, 2006 at 16:33 #

    And looking at their profile, they live in Djibouti. Does this mean they hate Djiboutians?

    And Holmes was indeed an injector. Kept in a box on the mantelpiece. But he only uses it between cases – Watson checks to see if the box has been used to see about Holmes’ mental state, as he generally only uses cocaine when he’s bored and depressed.

  15. Jemaleddin March 13, 2006 at 17:05 #

    Aha! I was right! How do you respond to that, Kev if-that-is-your-real-nickname? =-)

  16. HN March 13, 2006 at 17:30 #

    Well, I just checked and the witless blog is now gone. Perhaps because the response was not what he expected.

    I’m assuming it was done by the same person who has trouble remembering that some of his points of argument were proved to be worthless. He still brings up “there was no autism in China before 1999” despite being shown several times that is just not true.

  17. andrea March 13, 2006 at 17:35 #

    Gee, does THIS sounds familiar? Remind you of anyone?

    FLAME WARRIORS, by Mike Reed, “Ferrous Cranus”:

    “Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics. Sometimes out of pure frustration Philosopher will try to explain to him the failed logistics of his situation, or Therapist will attempt to penetrate the psychological origins of his obduracy, but, ever unfathomable, Ferrous Cranus cannot be moved.”

    http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm

    Great site! WARNING: not suitable for the highly distractible, hyperfocusing sorts if supposed to be doing work.

    andrea

  18. clone3g March 13, 2006 at 18:00 #

    Those are just wonderful andrea. Sue represents a hybrid of several species.
    ————————————————————————-
    Artful Dodger is a nimble and elusive Warrior. When strongly attacked he changes the subject with a diversionary counterattack. For example, if in a moment of pique his opponent refers to him to him as a “sonofabitch”, Artful Dodger will not only demand a public apology for the insult to his own mother, but will castigate his opponent on behalf all mothers everywhere. Knowing full well that staying on topic works to his disadvantage, Artful Dodger will not allow himself to be pinned down.
    ————————————————————————-
    Although sometimes a male, Crybaby is usually a female, and often a close ally of Innocence Abused. When teased or attacked Crybaby will pitch a loud public temper tantrum, holding her breath and kicking her feet. If that defense fails she will run to Nanny for comfort.

    ————————————————————————

  19. Definately not me March 13, 2006 at 19:35 #

    I missed the sockpuppet site… maybe it will return so that I can take a look. I can assure I lack the time or motivation to do anything like that. In fact, this blog has taken up too much of my time. You will see far fewer posts from me here (not a goodbye for good, though, Clone). I’m sure that this is devastating to you all. I know how much you appreciate my posts 🙂 .

    Sue M.

  20. Wade Rankin March 13, 2006 at 21:05 #

    When I saw my name missing from the list of the accused, I didn’t know whether to take it as a compliment or an insult. But then I saw the site before its disappearance; I’ll settle for the former.

    That damn Sigourney Weaver will stop at nothing to exact her revenge!

  21. Bonnie Ventura March 13, 2006 at 21:17 #

    Gee Kev, I’m jealous. I haven’t been sockpuppeted yet. I’m feeling so ignored and left out. I think I’ll kick and scream and hold my breath until I get a lot more attention.

    Hey, it works for some folks we know. 😉

  22. Dave Seidel March 13, 2006 at 21:52 #

    Wade, we know (or at least presume) that you are too much of a gentleman for that sort of juvenile tactic.

  23. David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending) March 13, 2006 at 21:55 #

    bonnie …. “Hey, it works for some folks we know. ;-)”

    No idea who you might mean 😉

  24. Champagne, Kevin March 14, 2006 at 00:04 #

    David Andrews said,

    Just a thought…. what about Kevin Champagne? Isn’t he a likely candidate for this sort of stunt?

    I wasn’t one of the choices. I didn’t make the list.

    What about one of you?

  25. María Luján March 14, 2006 at 00:33 #

    Mr Champagne
    My apologies. After the first post I thought it was you in Joseph´s blog.
    Honestly, after reading the last posts in his blog, I thought that I did not know “Kev” because of the kind of posts.
    María Luján

  26. David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending) March 14, 2006 at 00:35 #

    KC: “I wasn’t one of the choices. I didn’t make the list.”

    That doesn’t answer my question…. was it you? Regardless of whether you were on the initial list, were you the person who did it?

    Simple question… simple answer… yes/no… which one?

    You couldn’t even answer that?

  27. Dave Seidel March 14, 2006 at 00:42 #

    I don’t think it was KC. There wasn’t a single exclamation point in the entire post! 🙂

  28. Ms. Clark March 14, 2006 at 00:59 #

    Kathleen and I were on a healthfraud listerv last Spring… I think, and JB joined, introduced himself as a great and mighty rich man and then said he didn’t have time for the likes of us and disappeared. He was on there like one or two posts.

    I’ll see if I can find it to quote him properly.

  29. Champagne, Kevin March 14, 2006 at 01:33 #

    That doesn’t answer my question…. was it you? Regardless of whether you were on the initial list, were you the person who did it?

    No, it was not me.

  30. McGuffin March 14, 2006 at 01:41 #

    I’d like to place a bet on who it was. Are there any bookies around?

  31. HN March 14, 2006 at 02:30 #

    With the hint on the time I found it:
    http://www.ssr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?1:mss:97122:200503:aecpdgjgbgmidbphjpad

    … and the resulting thread:
    http://www.ssr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?1:sss:97122:200503:aecpdgjgbgmidbphjpad#b

    … Now the trick to find the “Whack a Mole” post!

  32. Bartholomew Cubbins March 14, 2006 at 02:53 #

    how dare he invoke Carl Sagan. I bet Carl would have a thing or two to say to the guy, and it would start with “billions and billions”

  33. Kathleen Seidel March 14, 2006 at 03:04 #

    Here’s that
    Whack-a-mole post

  34. Joseph March 14, 2006 at 03:25 #

    I just wanted to highlight a piece of Handley’s logic:

    I think the statement that chelation therapy does not work has no basis in fact, by the way. Why do Blue Cross, Aetna, and Cigna all endorse chelation therapy for heavy metal toxicity if it is ineffective?

    Isn’t that something?

  35. HN March 14, 2006 at 03:27 #

    Oy… let’s whack it again!

    Here: http://www.ssr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?1:mss:97151:200503:aecpdgjgbgmidbphjpad (I didn’t post it because it would have delayed my post because of the number of URL’s).

  36. Jonathan Semetko March 14, 2006 at 05:19 #

    Re Mr. Handley’s statement:

    “I think the statement that chelation therapy does not work has no basis in fact, by the way. Why do Blue Cross, Aetna, and Cigna all endorse chelation therapy for heavy metal toxicity if it is ineffective?”

    Yes, but one assumes that those cases involve properly tested cases of heavy metal poisoning being treated by a certified toxicologist instead of an ear/nose/throat cum DAN! approved doctor.

  37. HN March 14, 2006 at 06:49 #

    The Healthfraud listserv archive is very interesting. I found some fun stuff from last spring. Including postings from someone calling herself “killerjabs”… so I posted a reaction to her on Respectful Insolence.

  38. David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending) March 14, 2006 at 09:29 #

    KC: “No, it was not me.”

    And thereby doth KC prove himself more of a man that JBJr… I can respect someone who can give a straight answer. Thank you Mr C.

    Anyone got any ideas why JBJr can’t do that?

  39. clone3g March 14, 2006 at 14:22 #

    As Carl Sagan once said:

    “One of the saddest lessons of history is this:
    If we’ve been bamboozled long enough,
    we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle.
    We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth.
    The bamboozle has captured us.
    It is simply too painful to acknowledge – even to ourselves – that we’ve been so credulous.”

    Ironic that Handley, both bamboozled and bamboozler, would repeat this quote. – Generation Bamboozled

  40. Orac March 15, 2006 at 02:32 #

    HN:

    The Healthfraud listserv archive is very interesting. I found some fun stuff from last spring. Including postings from someone calling herself “killerjabs”… so I posted a reaction to her on Respectful Insolence.

    Sadly “killerjabs” has infested my blog–even worse than Fore Sam ever did, particularly this thread. She’s a lot more intelligent than Fore Sam, but exceedingly persistent.

  41. HN March 15, 2006 at 03:08 #

    I noticed… I also read some of the thread she participated on in Healthfraud. Saying she is more intelligent than Fore Sam is not saying much… she is just another mole to whack. I unfortunately do not have much time to deal (child chaffeur duties are heavy this week)… the measles versus MMR fatality issue was easy. But I from I see at a glance, she is using the same “ignore the facts I don’t like” tactic.

  42. Orac March 15, 2006 at 03:50 #

    I’m just ignoring her and Fore Sam for the moment. If I bothered with them, I’d never have time to write new stuff for the blog, and I consider fresh material to be my first priority over playing whac-a-mole with the same arguments from these two again and again.

  43. Kevin Champagne March 15, 2006 at 06:08 #

    Orac said,

    Sadly “killerjabs” has infested my blog—even worse than Fore Sam ever did, particularly this thread. She’s a lot more intelligent than Fore Sam, but exceedingly persistent.

    Orac, why is Jonathan Semenko trying to answer all of killerjabs questions while your complaining about Killerjabs infesting your blog over here?

    Can you answer Killerjabs? Why are you not questioning the CDC’s data the same way that you are the Geiers.

    Killerjabs said,

    “But I have always found it frustrating that these critiques are so one-sided. Orac and friends, why do you assume that the studies produced by the CDC are correct? If you’re going to stand up and declare that there is no link between vaccines and autism, don’t you have to investigate the claims of the CDC with the same vigor that you investigate the work of the Geier’s?”

    “Have you ever reviewed the CDC study that was published in Pediatrics?”

    Well?

  44. Jonathan Semetko March 15, 2006 at 19:53 #

    KC,

    I am happy to talk to anyone and I tend to perseverate on these things. A family member described me as “enjoying putting my head through brick walls” in discussion.

    Other people get tired of this real quick. I don’t blame Orac one bit for getting tired of it. I will take the conversation elsewhere if he asks.

    Now, to field the questions you quote:

    No, I do not assume the CDC is correct.

    Yes, one has to be critical of evidence no matter what the source.

    And yes, I have read the Verstraeten study.

  45. anonimouse March 16, 2006 at 00:48 #

    Kevin,

    Lots of people have reviewed the Verstraeten study. The only people that seem to have a problem with it have a vested interest in proving the autism-mercury theory correct.

  46. Definately not me March 16, 2006 at 14:24 #

    Ms. Clark wrote:

    “Some antivaxers actually call themselves antivax… interestingly, they are out of the closet that Sue and the rest are in”.

    – It is interesting how Ms. Clark (and others) always try to change the subject back to “antivax”. It is a very easy way to move from the original and most important question. Do childhood vaccines trigger autism in a certain group of children? Because she has no way to defend the practice of injecting mercury into babies and she has no way to disprove that vaccines can in fact trigger autism… she just wants to toss out the oh, he’s antivax… ooohhh, big insult…. 2nd grade maybe?

    – Sue M.

  47. clone3g March 16, 2006 at 16:52 #

    Sue’s self imposed exile has ended already?

    It is a very easy way to move from the original and most important question. Do childhood vaccines trigger autism in a certain group of children? Because she has no way to defend the practice of injecting mercury into babies and she has no way to disprove that vaccines can in fact trigger autism

    You have one part right but you’ve linked it to a hypothesis that hasn’t been proven so it doesn’t require that we disprove it. Again, the burden of proof is yours since you, and your anti-vax friends, are making the claim.

    Since you’ve asked the (now watered down) question, why don’t you try to answer it?
    Do childhood vaccines trigger autism in a certain group of children?

  48. Obviously ... March 16, 2006 at 19:26 #

    Clone wrote:

    “Do childhood vaccines trigger autism in a certain group of children”?

    – Of course they do, Clone.

    – Sue M.

  49. anonimouse March 16, 2006 at 19:44 #

    Sue,

    And you know this how? Because the Geiers say so?

  50. Because it's obvious ... March 16, 2006 at 19:54 #

    Mouse wrote:

    “And you know this how? Because the Geiers say so”?

    – Yes, that’s why Mouse. It’s only the Geiers who make such statements. They are the only ones who I listen to. No one who has been fighting this for years matters… ONLY the Geiers are important here. Duh?

    – Sue M.

Comments are closed.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: