I feel like I’ve made this post about a thousand times, but there seems to be a constant need for it: Atheism is descriptive, not normative. It neither includes nor excludes any values. (It may exclude a basis for a particular value, but the value itself is not excluded.) There simply is no way it could, no more so than my belief that rocks are hard could bring me to think that ancient toolmaking methods are important things to know. I can think both of those things, but that doesn’t mean one flows from the other. If it did, then that would mean a person couldn’t logically think that because rocks are hard, ancient toolmaking is useless to know. Just the same, two people can be atheists and have mutually exclusive views on the importance of, say, religion.
Now, let me get to the inspiration for this post:
I’ve never heard of J. Michael Straczynski, but I saw this picture pop up on my Facebook feed. What ensued was an entirely dismaying discussion where a fellow atheist first contended that my argument comes down to semantics, then he said Straczynski was at most using imprecise language, and finally he made a status where he encouraged people to make statements that began, “As an atheist…” I’m convinced this person has not considered the difference between normative and descriptive positions.
Let’s look at the quote in the picture. The author is saying that as an atheist he believes life is precious, but that isn’t really true. He is an atheist and he believes life is precious, but he does not believe life is precious because he is an atheist. Indeed, the sequence here is exactly backwards. What led him to be an atheist is what led him to also believe life disappears forever after only a brief time. He may as well say, “As someone who knows the Sun is hot, I believe life is precious” or “As someone who knows rocks are hard, I believe life is precious” or “As someone who knows the scrotum of a goat makes for a delicious snack, I believe life is precious.” His second clause does not follow from his first clause.
One of the reasons this is so important is that, aside from it being absurd to say that any given value derives from atheism (on what frickin’ basis?), this is exactly the same reasoning Christians and others use when they argue that Stalin did what he did because he was an atheist. That is, they are saying there are certain values a person must either include or exclude (or both) because of atheism. When that person, so the argument goes, comes to great power, Stalin is a logical result. And they would at least have a valid premise if atheism was actually normative.
Good thing it’s only descriptive.
I think the above argument makes a pretty solid case for why Straczynski’s statement is completely incoherent, but my favorite thought experiment on this matter is this one: Imagine I have in my hand a quote. This quotes comes from someone living in Anywhere, USA. The person may be black, white, male, female, born in the US, an immigrant, tall, short, fat, skinny, beautiful, ugly, smart, dumb, polite, crass, young, old, whatever. We have no facts about this person or his/her background. Not a single thing. All we know is what is contained within the quote. It is as follows: “I am an atheist, therefore I believe…” Now try to finish that sentence.
Go ahead. Try.
Filed under: Atheism/Humanism | Tagged: Atheism is descriptive, Descriptive, J. Michael Straczynski, Normative |
For the Sake of Science 
“I am a pure atheist – therefore I believe in no deity or deities beyond myself. I may not believe in my own self as a deity, because I state that there is no such thing as a deity. I may believe I am a freak of all universal laws and am a biologically thinking entity with a hard point start and an even harder point end, for no reason and with no purpose other than being a freak and contrary with and to all natural and universal laws. I am, if fact, so special that I should actually be a deity, after all. Ok. Forget it. I screwed that up. I believe in ME after all. Worship me. Atheism is Dead. bI am, in fact, a god.”
All religion on the face of the earth and down through history has been created to control the human population. There is no deity who has done this. It has just happened in the void. Maybe some life form created this bogus fraud.
I am Atheist. I am therefore Sovereign unto my Self. I am therefore immune to all higher controls. If a higher order wishes to intrude on my singular sovereignty I promise I will sue. I am precious because there is absolutely no reasoning behind my existence and I add nothing to the universe. I may take away from the universe because I am independently sovereign. Any and all other life forms or points of being are ordered to respect me and leave me alone.
I think I am omnipotent within myself, so therefore I must be, because I am, oh, so intelligent, within my own thinking cap, anyway.
I am Atheist. Watch me roar. If an Atheist screams in terror, alone in the universe, does anyone hear him/her? He/She/It does, of course – unless deaf to the natural universe which spawned him/her/it.
With each minute that passes I have less time to be an Atheist. I will roar again, since time marches on and I am running out of my allotted time. Who allotted that time anyway? The bastard/bastards. If I were deity I would fry their sorry ass/asses…but I cannot, because I am alone. I am perfect. I am Atheist. Who cares? Only God knows, because after all I am Atheist.
….9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,’poof’. I am gone. Hey…what’s this place? I have no idea because I am Atheist, aren’t I? I am sure I am Atheist. Hmmm. Damn the deceptions. Where is Science when I need it? Damn the perceptions.
NOT
Ummm… was that intended to be satirical, disjointed babble, or was the vague but abortive attempt at satire I thought I perceived a mere consequence of the disjointed babble?
I’m an atheist. My inner contempt and anger against religion is not a necessary and sufficient consequence of my atheism: it was a necessary and sufficient consequence of having read the Bible from Genesis to Revelations, in order to ensure I wasn’t missing some knock-down, clinching proof after I realised I was an atheist
Since then, when certain “people of Christian faith” have disputed or denied some particularly nasty Deuteronomite or Colossianite or Leviticusite “morals sent from God” I have cited, I have challenged to read their holy book from cover to cover, as I did. That’s all. Just read the fucking book you claim rules your life, because it’s clear you haven’t read much of it so far.
Every single one – without exception has downright refused to read the holy book they believe is the root of all morals and decent behaviour. Most of them have been angry about it.
So much for faith.
It was logic that made me a mild-mannered atheist who was happy to ignore religion. Reading the Bible in its entirety made me a fervid, angry religion-hater. Don’t get the two confused.
You are what you eat and become who you attach yourself to. Michael loves to hear himself type and read reactions. It makes him feel important in some weird way. His brain is so undeveloped that he’s actually impotent. He feels that,too, so like a nasty little kid who needs a whack upside the head, instead of any valid attention (which you give him). He loves dodging and weaving while throwing water bombs at people he doesn’t even know. He pretends to know the difference between simple concepts like normative and descriptive, theism and atheism while not realizing for one second that he needs to understand concepts like cryptonormativity and pure mathematics before he tries to hogtie better minds with his disseminated online catch-me-if-you-can shit.
You are what you eat and you’re eating his shit. He calls people quacks thinking he does no damage to their reputation. Here’s a guy who’s blogging focus is on penises and breasts like they’re cosmically important in any real sense. ( https://forthesakeofscience.com/2011/03/24/what-country-has-the-biggest-penises-in-the-world/ ) He’s an online public Wanker and little more. I can say that in all probability because of his childish online focus. He probably wanks and quacks at the same time. He posts audio quacks on his site. I can legitimately say he’s probably nothing more than a twisted quacking wanker because of his public displays, which he is obviously so proud of. He’d have to prove otherwise, which he’d have a near impossibility of doing because of all he posts for all to read. He loves to defend himself repeatedly for being so nasty. It would be funny except for the fact that he’s just so arrogantly nasty. He’s like a coyote carrying rabies. The world doesn’t view coyotes with rabies as having any positive value. The world generally euthanizes them when caught to save itself from nasty disease. He preaches his atheism with no understanding the mathematical impossibility of his existence without theism. So what to do, as you ask? Get a soul fast, both of you, or you are indeed up shit creek, as you say. You don’t believe in a soul? You think you and he are all science? You need to wake up. You want some evidence basis for what was just stated? You could read the following and then try to weasel your way out once again.
– or you could go “Quack Quack Quack” and wank yourself some more like a corkscrew into the ground. Best bets are that’s what you do, as usual.
Dr. Stuart Hameroff, MD, is Professor Emeritus at the Departments of Anesthesiology and Psychology and the Director of the Center of Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona and much of his research over the past few decades has been in the field of quantum mechanics, dedicated to studying consciousness.
– According to Dr. Hameroff, in a near-death experience, when the heart stops beating, the blood stops flowing, and the microtubules lose their quantum state, the quantum information in the microtubules isn’t destroyed. It’s distributed to the universe at large, and if the patient is revived, the quantum information can go back to the microtubules. In this event, the patient says they had something like a near-death experience, i.e. they saw white light or a tunnel or floated out of their body. In the event that the patient is not revived, “it’s possible that the quantum information can can exist outside the body, perhaps indefinitely, as a soul,” he said. – http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/
Robert Lanza, M.D., is Chief Scientific Officer of Advanced Cell Technology and an Adjunct Professor at Wake Forest University School of Medicine.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes
The Star of the Show
Michael Hawkins is an introverted and deeply troubled resident of Maine who loves biology, especially his own. He likes to spend his free time wanking and defending himself, though not usually at the same time. Contrary to popular (but not scientific) belief, Michael’s positive and appropriate perception of science is undermined by reality, alternative medicine, the U.S. education system, most open minded science journalists and real adult research.
You are both lost puppies and complete fools. Not Schmucks, as Michael like to label people, but rather Putz’s…which as any real man or woman knows, are little schmucks about this big.
Evidently, to you Alistair J. Archibald – ” Ummm… was that intended to be satirical, disjointed babble, or was the vague but abortive attempt at satire I thought I perceived a mere consequence of the disjointed babble?” Doesn’t surprise me based on what you followed with as some limp and veiled attempt at a valid argument to theism. Your only validity seems to be asking others to read the Bible and claiming they all don’t. That’s insightful, like you know what countless billions around the world both read and understand. If you had read the Bible sincerely and openly you’d have a much clearer understanding than you obviously do. Maybe instead of mocking and challenging those that have read and do see what you don’t (evidence based by your typing) it will behoove you to try it from page one to the final page. You just might find what you’re completely missing in your trite observations.
You can lead a horse to water but, ah never mind. No evidence based point in you doing that really. Best wishes anyway.
Mr. Hawkins, please repeat the point until you’re blue in the face, then repeat it a few hundred more times. If one more person claims to represent your or my morals or values or worldview simply because we both lack a belief in god, then the point hasn’t been made enough.
Even if the second clause can follow from the first, there is no reason that it *must* follow from the first. Yes, believing this is all that we have could make people value their lives more. It could also make them feel nihilistic, or have no significant impact on their lives.
Normative and descriptive statements
Quite some of the problems that students run in to can be mended by distinguishing more clearly between normative and descriptive statements. Examples of such mistakes are trying to solve a societal problem by merely describing how relevant parts of society are arranged while lacking a specification of the actual solution; or describing a situation and then offering a ‘solution’ to that situation without stating what the problem actually was.
For the sake of explanation, let us first start with rough definitions of normative and descriptive statements.
Descriptive statements present an account of how the world is. The word is connected to ‘description’.
Normative statements present an evaluative account, or an account of how the world should be. The word contains the stem ‘norm’: something that should be lived up to; or that should be pursued.
To the light of this distinction, some typically descriptive statements are:
Michael Jackson died in 2009;
Most tree leafs are some shade of green;
According to the theory of relativity, the speed of light is independent from the point of reference.
Similarly, some typically normative statements are:
Michael Jackson was the greatest musician ever;
I love forests of green trees;
Human-driven cars should never go faster than 100 km/h.
If you are not particularly puzzled by the descriptive/normative boundary, you may stop reading here, as the distinction above serves 99% of the needs. However, several different definitions and dichotomies are used in the overwhelming literature of philosophy. I go into that briefly, below.
Is normative the same as moral and ethical?
No it is not. Indeed, moral and ethical claims are generally normative; but they do not exhaust all possibilities. It is best to see moral and ethical claims as a subset of all normative claims. A circle should be drawn using a compass – this is by its semantic form clearly a normative phrase, and if you are told so by your maths teacher, you will understand that it is a normative statement that you better comply with. Yet, there is nothing particularly moral or ethical about it. The claim ‘Beethoven was the greatest composer of all times’ is clearly a normative claim. It evaluates the artistic genius of Beethoven, and provides a measure long which we can judge other composers. However, there is little immoral about ‘being not such a great composer as Beethoven’. It is rather a matter of taste, or perhaps a judgment by someone who is particularly authoritative because of some special expertise. The same holds for ‘the weather is fine’, or ‘it is ridiculous to spend € 1000 for a pair of jeans’.
The specific subset of normative claims that forms the set of moral claims is generally agreed upon to be characterized by the following properties.
Moral claims concern fundamental rights or goods, such as the protection of life, freedom, bodily integrity and well-being; and
Moral claims have a strong pretention to universalization. They are typically such that we do not only believe that we ourselves should accept them, but that it is also necessary that others do so (which is not to say that they actually do, nor that we have the right or means to force them to).
For all practical purposes, moral claims and ethical claims are one and the same. However, sometimes the distinction is made that morality is the set of norms that we adhere to unproblematically, while ethics is the activity of reflecting on morality and its problems. This entails that moral claims concern the uncontroversial claims that we need not discuss (or at least at some point can leave undiscussed), while ethical claims are controversial and typically subject of discussion.
Normativity and its antonyms
Usually, it is not the most convincing argumentative strategy to explain something by examples of what it is not. If you are asked what a football is, do not start with explaining how it is in any way not a tennis ball. However, the problem with normativity is that it actually has several antonyms (concepts that oppose it).
Primarily, normative is used as being opposed to descriptive as explained above. The demarcation between the two is on the difference between describing an actual state and a desired state. I will henceforth call this ‘normative-as-prescriptive’.
However, sometimes, the demarcation is thought to be on a different line. Normative is then used as opposed to empirical, and the demarcation is on the question whether or not the claim is for its validity dependent on knowledge of ‘the world out there’. In this sense, mathematical knowledge is highly normative. In fact, mathematicians are the champions of finding knowledge that is overtly independent of knowledge about the world. A square has four sides and its area equals the length of one side multiplied with itself. Of course this has a meaningful correlate in the actual world, but hardcore mathematicians do not care very much for real-world squares. The knowledge precedes empirical observation, hence my further use of ‘normative-as-apriori’.
Note however, that mathematical knowledge is not at all normative in the first sense, normative-as-prescriptive. In fact, mathematical knowledge is in that sense descriptive: it consists of statements about how things are (be it often in an imaginative space, not the real world). There is nothing particularly beautiful, desirable or morally compelling about the claim that a parabola has exactly one extreme.
It is in the meaning of normative-as-apriori, that theories, in virtually any discipline, can be normative: whenever they precede empirical investigation, instead of being its consequence. Vast parts of cosmology are normative: it contains mathematical constructs that precede empirical investigation. Surely they aim at testability and in the end it is hoped that observations confirm or disprove them, but until then, they are normative (not moral, though). But also much of social theory and philosophy is normative in this sense, even when it only makes descriptive claims. The point is that even when those disciplines make descriptive claims, they often depend on constructs (“complex theoretical concepts”) that do not have a clear observable correlate in the real world. Of course, such constructs are likely normative-as-prescriptive as well, but that need not be their explicit purpose.
Note that both sorts of normativity tend to go together well, though mathematical knowledge epitomises the exception.
Against ‘normative-as-prescriptive’, the word descriptive is generally considered synonymous with ’empirical’ and ‘positive’. In this sense, normative is also used as opposed to ‘sociological’ by Jürgen Habermas (Between Facts and Norms, Polity Press, 1996, p. 549), which of course refers to a particular realm of the empirical.
Purely mathematically, as you can guess from the preceding explanation, the will always be a specific percentage of minds that revolve together around the same old worn out sign post, until some other information spins a few off to find the rest of the cosmos. Mathematics is not normative. It is, in fact, exception. Everything can be revealed mathematically, in the end (and of course there is no end because that’s a moving cyclic expansion and contraction) Eventually mathematics proves all truths. It’s the only truth there really is because withing it as a vehicle, one finds all the rest explained, eventually. Having no concept of mathematical truth is no excuse or defense for a self styled atheist. It is simply a label slapped to their back to warn those passing by of that particular waste of time and effort to enlighten. Hope remains eternal though. Stranger things have happened. It can drain one’s energy, though, and therefore should be evaluated on it’s mathematical merits of point. Cryptonormativity is illustrated as the hidden agenda tacked to normative statements and attitudes. It’s like a rabbit hole and not particularly useful in gaining any knowledge or enlightenment. Descriptive statements and.or attitudes are of a generally positive construct. As a linguistic tool or mindset of tools they move things forward, onward and upward, inward and outward always in growth. The negative attitudes displayed by a few here are useful in stagnation or fermentation, only, where oxygen is deliberately depleted to see what will happen. Complete waste of energy, time and space.
Atheism is so UN descriptive it hurts to even read that title above. Atheism is Cryptonormative. It is unquestionably negative in it’s intent and positions. That makes it NOT descriptive in any way, shape or form. Just more fancy footwork bullshit from the proponents here on this blog. Not very fancy at all.
You don’t really understand most of what you just copy and pasted, Accaba. Atheism is descriptive because it simply states an observation, much like a statement that says rocks are hard is also descriptive. It is neither positive nor negative since it isn’t say that God, gods, religion, or anything else is good or bad. Until you can formulate a coherent argument that says otherwise, you aren’t exactly impressing anyone.
But at any rate, given how frequently people of your kind like to accuse those in the sciences of constantly having ulterior motives, I can’t say your argument surprises me.
Nothing errant about a copy and paste to support a point. I see your rock analogy was right out of that same paste. Of course you missed the entire premiss. which is what you seem to do about pretty near everything Michael. Descriptive, as you tried to use it in your ‘piece’ is a positive. That’s clear. I contend that everything you say is negative…including your claim of a complete lack of understanding of theism, as evidenced by your constant preaching of your religion of atheism. Your heading says Atheism is Descriptive. No, it’s not. It’s completely normative, the way you contend. Here is a copy and paste of your diatribe:
Atheism is descriptive. Atheism is descriptive. Atheism is descriptive.
Posted on October 31, 2012 by Michael Hawkins
I feel like I’ve made this post about a thousand times, but there seems to be a constant need for it: Atheism is descriptive, not normative. It neither includes nor excludes any values.
You’re completely wrong headed. It does (atheism) include values, the way you pound it continually on your ‘blog’ and the way you taunt theism. Your continual spinning of everything indicates a total cryptonormative intent.
Your intent is to say that theism is bad, wrong, stupid, insane, whatever.
That attaches a value, although a very limited one. What you do and what you type, which you obviously copy and paste from what someone else has written ( only pretending, not openly saying, it’s a copy and paste) is generally a twisted version of the original writer’s intent. One which you just try to fit your empty arguments. Try getting some bona fied values and bona fied principles (means good faith in Latin to save you from looking that up before you answer)
Don’t try to tell me what I don’t understand when you have so much difficulty understanding so many basic principles. I see you’ve been flogging the same dead meat for, what, 3 or more years? You’d think you would have moved on by now instead of being stuck in the same old place for so long. No, I guess you wouldn’t think that, would you?
I, of course, can’t say your argument surprises me either. Nor does it impress me at all. In fact very little you type impresses me. It just makes me curious to see what you’ll try to say next. Your Penis page was a great hilarity though. I must admit that. No little man syndrome for you, obviously. Or, maybe. Who really gives a shit except you? ;-)
Carry on with your ‘blog’ buddy. It obviously does something for your libido or your ‘sense’ of self worth.
‘People in sciences’? You Michael? I don’t think so. Nobody who had a thirst for knowledge would be as closed and narrow minded as you obviously are. You’re not ‘in Science’ Mikey. You’re in Denial. True scientists don’t run around putting up online blog sites like you do. True science is not that deluded. Drop some acid and rearrange your thought patterns. Maybe then you’ll type something coherent that’s worth a read. Good luck with that.
I think I see where you’ve made your mistake. First, I think you’re incredibly clouded by anger, so you haven’t considered your arguments very closely. But I don’t mean you’re angry the way quacks like Moritz meant it. I just mean to say you’re mad that someone insulted a hero of yours, so now you’re going out of your way to rant about whatever else you can find by the person who upset you.
Second, you’ve really just confused atheism and anti-theism, is all. We can see this when you say that my intent is to say theism is bad. Furthermore, you appear to also be conflating my positions with what atheism means. There isn’t really a good excuse for that.
You betchya. incredibly clouded with anger?…I don’t think that much. Never even knew who Moritz was until a few weeks ago, even though I recognize his face and gentle voice on a video or two in which he suggested a lot that is proving to be fact pretty rapidly now. So, you’re way off base trying to make your assumptions fit in this case. Hero, no. As far as rants might go read your blogging. You’ve been ranting incessantly about anything and everything, for years. Out of your way seems to be the norm for you Michael. Learn from the best I always say. You’re not the best, mind you, but keep ranting. Who knows, maybe you’ll improve someday. It’s obvious you can’t stomach anyone even questioning your routines in any way. That’s the only reason you reply. I have scanned a lot of your type and rarely if ever see you acquiesce to anyone who doesn’t kiss your ass or agree with you in every way. Of course I see why. That would be passive approval. There’s rarely a good excuse allowed for another when your primary intention is to debase anything they say. What good would an excuse do? Waste of time with you. I’m not a great writer, maybe, but that sure puts me in the same league as you because you obviously aren’t either, as attested to by many in your blog. So, that’s a wash anyway.
My take is that you abhor the fact that anyone would have the gall to observe that at least some of your unbelievable rudeness, personal attacks on those people you have attacked, whom you never knew personally, no matter how unwarranted, obsessions about your own perfection, also no matter how unwarranted, loud and obnoxious promotion of atheism (which as well as other personal beliefs should be kept to yourself not sold like a used car). Your obvious intent, to whomever you wish to spit on, is to intimidate, illuminate in a bad light, and pretend that you are some higher power with greater intellect, more coherent logic, greater command of the English Language, perceptive scientific mind, and anything else that you think will impress. You’re just not that impressive, sadly. You show glaring holes in whatever you seem to type, at every turn. I assumed you liked to be challenged at times just so you could read your own reply and give yourself a high five, with one hand. I can see I was in err. My deepest apology Master Hawkins. My deepest sympathy, as well. Master Bates. Anger with you? Was there ever any doubt? It sure took you more than a few days to publicly question that. Slow on the uptake I see, as well as pretty near everything else you think. Yes, most assuredly I think you are the most non insidious piece of work I have witnessed for a long long time. You’re blatantly obscene in your attacks on other human beings. You have no idea what you are doing and what you bare saying. You only think you do. Free speech set aside, you’re a hallmark of everything that can be bad about the internet and America in general. America has raised some of the most eloquent, brilliant, spiritual, polite, compassionate, forward thinking, balanced, non discriminatory and caring people the world has ever produced.
For three years, or longer, your ‘blog’ has shit all over every one of them by your evidence that You aren’t among their great numbers.
Michael Hawkins, what you need is a great big Epiphany between your ears and in your heart, which I have no doubt exists within you. Well, maybe I have been doubting, but I think you can prove me and a lot of other people you have hurt with your actions, wrong after all. What you need ( you’ll deny it of course -it’s what you do) is a little Faith in something, anything. A little theism would indeed do you some serious good. Hope you think about it, sincerely and honestly.
May not be well written, but is certainly heart felt. Take care.
Oh, yes, I guess what I would like to see is you publicly saying something like this: ” Andreas Moritz Sir, I am indeed sorry for the way I publicly humiliated and insulted your being and your intentions, no matter how much I believed you may have been wrong or off base. I had no moral or civilized call to say what I said about you. I am indeed sorry. I will read your book after all this is behind us. I may still disagree, after that, but I promise I will treat you with kindness and respect, because I know after all you are just a man like I am trying to do our best in this world. I respect you and myself at least that much”
Something like that and You’ll have my respect Mikey. I might even relay how much class you showed, in the end, to many I interact with.
What I find most unfortunate about this is that I didn’t bother to check your IP address earlier. It turns out you have posted here under 4 different names, attaching a different email to each one. Moreover, you have been cluttering my Recent Comments widget, consistently spreading your comments out over more than one post per response. That falls exactly in line with the only reason I’ve ever banned anyone from my site in the past. So congratulations, you are now the second person I’ve had to do away with.
For anyone who has managed to get through this sea of garbage, Accaba has also posted under the names Trader Haus, Blues, and robscollett. His IP is 64.64.163.33 and traces to Ontario. I seem to vaguely recall someone from that area going to town to defend Moritz elsewhere on the Internet, but I’m not positive (plus it could be a coincidence anyway).
You know, Accaba/Trader/Blues/Rob, had you bothered to sprinkle at least a little bit of content into your incredibly angry ad hominens, I probably wouldn’t have to ban you. Unfortunately, you seem to be almost exclusively interested in attacking me. That strikes me as rather curious given your claim to have only been reading my blog over the course of a couple of days. Moreover, you seem to be rather fond of referring to the complete history of my blog, almost as if you’re familiar with the 2,500+ posts I’ve made. I very much suspect you aren’t who you claim; it seems likely to me that you have spent far more time concerning yourself with my opinions than you want anyone here to know.
Oh, and atheism is descriptive.
I have just found that Accaba’s IP address tracks very close to the IP for a Mark Millar, someone who left a comment here quite some time ago. They may not be the same person, but they seem to be equally stupid, so it’s possible.