I am currently crafting my response to Christopher Maloney. This will be fun.
Oh, and he thinks my middle initial is L. He’s wrong about that, too.
Filed under: Misc | Tagged: Christopher Maloney, Thought of the day | 1 Comment »
Christopher Maloney responds
Posted on May 23, 2010 by Michael
Maloney has responded to my complaint about his ‘practice’. I would gladly post it, but I’ve read some vaguely worded confidentiality information in relation to all the documents I have. I presume it pertains to the state, not me, but I’m going to side with caution. Besides, anyone can probably guess roughly what he has said. I will, however, mention that using one’s own mug as part of a letterhead isn’t the most snazzy or humble looking thing I’ve ever seen on a piece of paper.
Once I offer my response and Maloney becomes an agenda item at a board meeting, I will make everything public. And really, that’s the point. I have my fair doubts that anything direct will come of all this. After all, the State of Maine has already given naturopaths far more than they deserve as it is. (If only we could take after the states that have explicitly made their dangerous malarkey illegal. Sigh.) However, I am hopeful I can bring attention to the issue. I think that’s the key in fighting these people. For instance, take chiropractors. They’re basically quacks (sometimes with limited, legitimate physical therapy training – but usually not). Until a few years ago, even I thought they were honest practitioners with something medically valuable to offer. But then PZ Myers and others went out of their way to point out the quackery of these people. That helped to make me aware and completely change my perspective of chiropractors, thus saving me money and hurting their business scams. The same has to be done with naturopaths and most other alt-med people. Like I’ve said before, even my tiny campaign for the well-being of Augusta residents has probably resulted in preventing Maloney from writing more letters to the editor.
Now if Mainers can just get together and outright ban naturopaths, the state might be a safer place.
Filed under: Pure bullshit | Tagged: Christopher Maloney, Quack quack quack | 1 Comment »
Christopher Maloney tweets
Posted on May 17, 2010 by Michael
One of the successes of my original letter to the editor about Christopher Maloney is that it’s unlikely he’ll write in support of naturopathy again any time soon. If he does, he’ll just be re-raising his profile, prompting another, cutting letter from me, and probably getting a few more Google results for himself. I’ve said it several times: there are far more interesting topics for a blog, but so long as he continues to try and put his quackery out there, I’m not going to be the person who ignores it. Simply, I, quite honestly, do not want to see people going to a naturopath when they need serious medical attention.
And the thing is, I don’t think I’ve been unclear about any of this. Sure, I never said my paper is UMA endorsed, nor have I ever said I’m an English major, nor have I listed my age as 18 (I’m 25, as of Sunday, for those interested), and sure, Maloney inanely thought otherwise, but I still think there’s no excuse for not knowing that silence is the only reasonable option for him right now – especially since I’ve made the point over and over. Really, there’s nothing he can do to help himself at this point; he can only not make things worse.
So that’s why it’s so perplexing that Maloney would start Tweeting. So far he’s only had vague, new agey-sounding posts.
The impossible is simply a few steps removed from what you consider ordinary. Focused attention will draw it into your ordinary sphere.
So inspirational! But whatever. If he wants to spout truisms or whathaveyou, he’s welcome to do it; I can’t muster enough concern to make posts about each one. (Plus they’re even less interesting than the rest of his life.) I’m just interested to see how long until he starts disparaging vaccines while promoting black elderberry or some other dangerous malarkey that can have the actual result of making people less healthy.
Filed under: Pure bullshit | Tagged: Christopher Maloney, Quack quack quack, Tweet tweet tweet, Twit Twit Twit, Twitter | 1 Comment »
“Acknowledgment of Complaint”
Posted on May 14, 2010 by Michael
To my utter delight, included in my mail today was a letter from the Department of Professional and Financial Regulation acknowledging my complaint about Christopher Maloney.
After the complaint is docketed, the complaint coordinator acknowledges receipt of the complaint and sends a copy to the licensee. The licensee is asked to respond within 30 days. Upon receipt of the licensee’s response, a copy is sent to the complainant. The complainant is asked to reply within 10 days, but a reply is not mandatory. The complainant’s reply, like the original complaint, is shared with the licensee.
I can’t wait.
Filed under: Pure bullshit | Tagged: Christopher Maloney, Naturopathy, Quack quack quack | 7 Comments »
Where’s the shame?
Posted on May 7, 2010 by Michael
I really just think Christopher Maloney doesn’t quite understand the Internet. He will make out-of-context posts all over the place, often just repeating himself. For instance, once the Internet blew up in his face, he posted this letter on a number of sites. It makes specific references and is directly addressed to PZ. His website was even worse, where he put a shitload of posts (which no one was about to tease apart) from Pharyngula and elsewhere where he basically says “Look! Look at my responses! They were dismissed everywhere else, but now that I’m reposting them, they must be true!” He has since taken down a lot of that material, so I guess that shows promise. Honestly. By addressing everything with so much Gish Gallop nonsense, he only made himself look worse (which is a feat in itself); everything clearly was (and is) stressing him out, his (misdirected) SIWOTI sense was (and is) going off the chart, and he was (and still is) only making it worse. Since he obviously can’t make anything better for himself at this point, the best he can do is not make it worse. That should have been obvious from the get-go. It’s the Internet. Learn it.
But, alas, he wants to keep it going.
I have requested meeting Hawkins’ in person, and he has responded by running to your blog.
Note the time stamp on that post. It was May 6 at 7:52 am. Maloney made his request on May 5 at 9:07pm (and it came across as an ambiguous, disoriented threat to go to the police). Now look at the time PZ made his post. May 4 at 5:44pm. Maloney made his request a full day after I emailed PZ with an update. This rearranging of events is common for Maloney. I’ve already documented quite a bit of his lying, but he’s getting so blatant now that I’m almost bored.
Of course, there’s more.
Since this is our first actual exchange, I will repeat. Like all stalkers you will not have the courage to meet with me. It is part of the pathology of stalking, and you are creating a feeble rationale.
Immediately above that post I said I would meet him. The only “feeble rationale” that I put forth was that I would not do it at his convenience, on his terms, sans all other witnesses people, and I would not let him “ply” me with anything, even if it is only useless homeopathic ‘medicine’. He is the one demanding the meeting; he does not get to dictate the terms. Of course, to him this means that I won’t meet him at all.
If you were capable of examining your own actions objectively, you would see that I have not reacted angrily to months of ignorant abuse. I reacted only when you managed, somewhat bizarrely, to get me noticed by Myers.
Right. The hours of hunting down critical websites, the trolling of threads on Pharyngula a month later, and the lengthy posts on his own site certainly do not indicate any sort of anger. Right…r-right?
Oh, and it wasn’t bizarre at all that PZ posted about Maloney on Pharyngula. Maloney and Moritz emailed each other back and forth before collaborating on a plan to get me shut down. The fact that Moritz was the one who sent the whining email is inconsequential to the guilt of Maloney.
But, despite months of your obsession, this is our first actual exchange. To claim that I am somehow the irrationally angry person is classic projection of your own pathology.
Says the guy who has been continuously claiming on his own website that I’m the obsessed one? While he continued to troll Pharyngula, pressing what had become an old, dead issue?
I would ask you this: how have I injured you? Have I reacted in any way that would justify your obsession with me? The only email I sent you was one requesting no contact with me, my family, or my neighbers, which you did not honor.
I actually honored the request not to contact Maloney or his family. He claims he received a paper, but given that he also claims I stuffed it in his screen door, I suspect he’s just lying again. (I never open anyone’s doors, and I doubt I mistakenly gave him a paper in the first place anyway.) His request I not contact his “neighbers”, however, was a silly one. Aside from the fact that the relative closeness of the houses to each other in that area makes it good for distribution, the people physically closest to Maloney need to know the sort of quackery he practices.
But as for injury, naturopaths do not have the proper training to be receiving patients, except according to unfortunate state laws. That is enough motivation for me. The fact that Maloney brought attention to himself in the first place with a letter to the editor of the local paper just raised his profile.
Now I am requesting that we sit down and discuss the situation like adults, but it is evident that your pathology is too severe to allow you any insight.
No, he is requesting that we sit down with no witnesses people so he can “ply” me with diluted ‘medicine’. I’ll be happy to call him a quack to his face, but not under ridiculous, creepo terms.
Your university told me that they have brought up counseling for you, but that they could not force you to take their suggestions.
I have been forwarded an email where Maloney claims to have gone to my university. Apparently he wanted to discuss whether or not my paper was endorsed by UMA. I’ve never claimed any sort of endorsement, so I’m not sure why Maloney would think I have. At any rate, I’ve never been contacted by anyone from UMA for any reason whatsoever. Maloney is lying. Again.
The Augusta police department is very familar with you, and if you continue your obsession I will need to take legal action. Not as a threat, Michael, just to make sure you get help.
He says the APD is familiar with me as if I don’t know. After I wrote about how one officer had no idea how to handle a freedom of information request, I personally delivered a copy to the police department. When I later discovered that another officer who was mentioned in the article had a Facebook profile, I friend requested him (not because I thought he would accept, but instead because it made me chuckle to do it at all), sending him all the links in which he was mentioned.
But it’s cute that Maloney is pretending as if he isn’t making a threat. No, no. It’s just out of genuine concern for my welfare, right? Don’t mind all the lies leading up to this new claim.
But I’m curious. What would a lawsuit from Maloney look like? Aside from probably getting him far more national attention, I suspect it would be utterly ridiculed when everyone realized that the complaint came down to “someone was mean to me!”. But hell, maybe I would get more emails from people like Simon Singh and Richard Dawkins.
Filed under: Pure bullshit | Tagged: Augusta, Augusta Police Department, Christopher Maloney, Maine, Naturopathy, pz myers, Quack quack quack, Richard Dawkins, Simon Singh, Without Apology | 6 Comments »
“Thank you for your complaint”
Posted on May 6, 2010 by Michael
After a long wait and a little back and forth, I’ve finally completed my formal complaint against Christopher Maloney. As it turns out, it shouldn’t have taken nearly this long. It’s a matter of filling out a simple form.
To file your own complaint, go here and enter in the following information.
Licensee Information:
Mr. Christopher L Maloney
4 Drew St
Augusta, ME 04330Phone: 207-623-1681
License number: ND240
Part of my complaint read as follows:
Maine law concerning naturopathic doctors states naturopaths cannot:
D. Practice or claim to practice medicine and surgery, osteopathy, dentistry, podiatry, optometry, chiropractic, physical therapy or any other system or method of treatment not authorized in this chapter.
Christopher Maloney recently said this:
“Did it ever occur to any of you that I practice evidence’ based medicine?”
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/christopher_maloney_still_a_qu.php#comment-2285801
This would appear to be a violation of Maine law and the conditions to which Maloney agree when he became a naturopathic doctor.
There was more, including links to his site, but I don’t want to risk having him alter the text before anyone see it.
Filed under: Pure bullshit | Tagged: Christopher Maloney, Naturopath, Quack quack quack | 1 Comment »
Christopher Maloney: still lying
Posted on May 4, 2010 by Michael
You all know Christopher Maloney, the quack with a history of lying. For quite some time he has remained pretty quiet, unlike Andreas Moritz, thus preventing himself from appearing on FTSOS too much. Unfortunately, I just came across some of his lies.
2/25/10
Michael Hawkins’ blog was offline for all of four days, including a weekend that involved a general wordpress failure of many sites. At this point it is clear the entire skeptic charade was a lot of screaming about nothing but standard software error. I don’t expect an apology anytime soon.
First, my site was down for 6 days. Second, Maloney is trying to say that the reason my site was down was because WordPress had technical difficulties. Those difficulties lasted a short period of time and were unrelated to the suspension of FTSOS that happened. But does anyone expect a scummy person like Maloney to be honest?
Michael Hawkins of Augusta ran a blog attacking me for a few months. In the process he began arguing with his webhost, got himself suspended, then argued with them again and got kicked off.
He flatters himself. There was one post of a letter I sent to the editor in response to Maloney. That letter was too strongly worded, so I sent another and posted that. I then responded to the responses that raised. I then responded to an email that threatened legal action from one of Maloney’s fans. (There was also one more post that merely mentioned Maloney, but was not about him.) He makes it sound like this blog is all about him. It isn’t. Most of the topics are far more interesting, and in fact, there were over 75 other posts made over the time I mentioned Maloney.
Of course Maloney has to conveniently forget all the details, right? He says that “in the process” of my posts about him I began arguing with WordPress. That isn’t true. I only made a post about “Mark” from WordPress being a simpleton after I got a warning from WordPress (as well as a brief suspension, what with this host’s shoot-first policy). I was pretty much done with Maloney at that point. But, of course, what Maloney doesn’t mention is that he was emailing Moritz back and forth; Moritz, armed with false information about Maloney’s status in Maine, had gone to WordPress. Does anyone else believe this makes Maloney innocent?
My deepest apologies to my friends and neighbors who received the “Without Apology” hate mail.
Michael Hawkins is someone I have never met. He is not a patient, does not know any of my patients, and is only interested in attacking me because he wants attention. Today he waited until I was away from my home before stuffing his hate mail inside my screen door, which gives a pretty good sense of him as a person.
As I noted in my post about that edition of Without Apology, I specifically tried avoiding Maloney’s home. There were two houses which had lights on inside, but the outside light was too low for me to see the numbers. Since I don’t like approaching homes while people are awake at that time unless I can throw my paper from a distance (I’d rather not scare people), I did not get close enough to check the exact address. Maloney’s house number is 4, so I thought I was avoiding house 4 and 6 or 4 and 2. If anything, I was disappointed that I couldn’t risk giving all his neighbors my publication. Apparently he did get a paper, which is great, but I specifically tried avoiding giving him one because he sent me an email telling me not to contact him, his family, friends, or neighbors. He has a legitimate request on the first two counts, but his friends and neighbors are not off-limits. The fact that he mentioned them (not that I know any of his friends) is why I went to his neighborhood.
But my favorite part of this is that he thinks I know when he is and isn’t home. How? Does he think I stalk him? That’s the first time I’ve ever been on his small road. Hell, I wasn’t even sure which house was his. And I certainly didn’t “stuff” anything in anyone’s screen door. I would never open someone’s door like that because 1) that’s creepy and 2) it would make a lot of noise. It’s possible that I placed a paper in the handles of some doors, but I doubt it since the papers are small and would have just fallen out. I pretty much just throw the papers on porches or some other visible location.
I encourage any and all neighbors to contact the Augusta city police department if they see him lurking around. The department is already very familiar with him because he spent one of his “newspaper” issues attacking them after he received a parking ticket.
Lol? Yes, lol.
I walked around his neighborhood in light colored khakis and a red shirt. I’m not sure how that is lurking.
But again with the lies. My article about the Augusta Police was not merely over a parking ticket. It was about an officer who did not understand that he needed to hand over certain records under the Maine Freedom of Information Act. The ticket was from years ago and played a small role in the motivation for asking for the records. (The bigger motivation was course requirement for a journalism class I happened to be taking.) I eventually received a written and signed apology from the chief of police over the incident.
On a side note, I’ve been surprised no one has asked me what I’ve been doing this whole time. I know people have seen me in various neighborhoods, but no one has asked me what’s up. Granted, other than once when it was freezing, I always wear fairly bright clothes, but it seems like the “Neighborhood Watch” signs should mean something.
But sure, tell the police that you see me. If I continue with the paper, I’ll even be sure to let them know when I’m going to be distributing it so they don’t have to waste their time asking me for ID over something that is not illegal. I mean, Christ. I have my name all over the paper, I know the police have seen it (I personally dropped it off at the police station), and I even have contact information included.
My understanding of him is that he is a desperately lonely UMA freshman who has fallen in with a group of atheists online and this hate mail process is a bit like trying to join a gang for him.
Well, it’s not like anyone has ever thought Maloney has much understanding of anything.
Aside from being a senior (who will have a Liberal Studies degree next semester, followed by a Biology degree shortly thereafter), I find it unfortunate that Maloney is trying to ‘win’ his case by using “atheist” as if it’s a dirty word. Atheists are some of the brightest people around, especially those who are in the limelight, so I ought to be taking this as a compliment. And really, wasn’t it atheists who helped me get my blog back? Thanks again to PZ, Richard Dawkins, and all the others who sent emails of support and made anti-quack posts on their sites.
Hawkins’ whole group has targeted me as someone small enough that they can attempt to bully me.
Really? PZ Myers dealt with the whole uproar over Crackergate. Richard Dawkins is one of the most famous atheists in the world. Simon Singh, who also sent me an email, recently beat the quackery of chiropractors in the U.K. Is this really about bullying or is it just that Maloney practices quackery?
I’m not sure if they’d like me to simply shut down or to cease to exist. I have been providing them with a steady stream of medical studies supporting what I practice, but for the most part these “scientists” are more interested in swearing at me than engaging in conversation.
Here’s another instance of someone undeserving of respect demanding he be given it. It’s pathetic. Oh, and Dr. Steven Novella had a pretty good take down of all those studies Maloney was abusing.
Christopher – you are just going through all the CAM logical fallacies, aren’t you.
Now you are playing – I have bad evidence, but so does regular medicine.
There is simply no comparison. We have already demonstrated that your ability to asses the evidence is incompetent, and you have not answered any of the direct questions. You cited irrelevant research, and you partially quoted an abstract drawing the wrong conclusion. You might as well just make it up.
The level of evidence for elderberry and garlic is so slight that the reliability is close to zero – this is almost as good as no evidence at all.
You cannot defend your position, so you trot out all the canards against mainstream medicine.
And to answer Maloney’s curiosity, we would like you to shut down. Your existence is okay.
I have been unimpressed by the level of scientific knowledge displayed and find myself having to explain the basics of medical research.
Again, Mr. Novella:
Christopher,
You are making excuses. There is not a difference between practice and science – practice should be based upon science. You simply cannot really know what works without scientific evidence. It is naive hubris to think otherwise.
Update: I guess I missed some more lies.
(Series of unfunny junk written without a bit of irony.)
Maloney also posted that on Pharyngula. Here is a rather succinct response.
No, the Qwackster is not a Poe. Just an idjit. Somehow, he thinks he becoming an authority via his repetative posts, so we will believe his malarky. That isn’t working, and he looks more desparate and deluded with each post. If he had even a smidgeon of intelligence he would just fade into the bandwidth, and quit wasting his time.
Double update: PZ has a new post.
Filed under: Pure bullshit | Tagged: Andreas Moritz, CAM, Christopher Maloney, Naturopathy, pz myers, Quack quack quack, Richard Dawkins, Simon Singh, Steven Novella, Without Apology | 11 Comments »
I told you he read FTSOS
Posted on April 26, 2010 by Michael
Jack Hudson is a bit like Ken Ham. Both are Christians. Both are creationists. Both routinely fail to defend positions. Oh. And both refuse to link to those who criticize them.
Anyone who regularly reads Pharyngula knows that Ken Ham and his Creation ‘Museum’ people will not link back to PZ’s articles. It’s a cowardly passive-aggressive sort of thing. They have made a habit of referring to PZ as an “atheist professor”, a “professor from Minnesota”, or some other similar name, but they won’t mention him directly. Now it looks like Jack Hudson has taken out a page from that play book for use on me.
After getting up in a huff over something someone else said to him, he left FTSOS, vowing never to return. Okay. But it has been clear that he still lurks around here. His articles have often been based upon links posted here, and his remarks have often been thinly veiled responses to comments made here (and a couple times even to comments made on Facebook…sort of like how he referenced his Facebook discussions when he texted my cousin).
You know, I can’t deny that I’ve had conversations with friends that have resulted in posts here. It happens from time to time. Of course, if I’ve made specific responses to a person, even if written in a generalized voice, I’ve always sent on a link to the person. It’s just common courtesy. And really, why would I want to hide from what I’ve said? I said it in the first place because I want people to listen.
Jack has had at least three responses to FTSOS. The first was an update to a post of his that was pro-bigotry while vaguely featuring some infantile libertarianism.
An Addendum:
It’s a bit of a myth that this wouldn’t have happened to a heterosexual married couple; in fact, this does happen to elderly married couples.
This was in response to my post about an elderly gay couple that was separated by the state. The two men had about as much legal documentation as they possibly could so as to avoid the hardships of current end-of-life care in the United States which disregards their humanity. But it didn’t matter. They were separated and had their belongings stolen and sold by Sonoma County in California.
Jack thinks that’s the same as another older, heterosexual, married couple who was forced into a nursing home. While that is superficially similar (the gay couple was also forced into a nursing home), the fact is that this all hinges on marriage. Someone blinded by pure bigotry dressed up in lies isn’t likely to see this: the gay couple was separated and not allowed to see each other, despite the lack of any sort of conviction for alleged abuse (which was alleged by known liars), much less the presence of any charges. A married couple would have been given better than that. And, in fact, the married couple in the second story, while in a deplorable situation that was and is an abuse of power by the state, were not separated, the only reason being because they were married. Honestly. One friend (who will be getting this link, incidentally) recently told me that this whole thing is about “the legitimization” of gay relationships, suggesting that there are ways gay couples can get rights “without calling it marriage”. That’s crap and this is just another piece of evidence that separate but equal can never be equal. Oh, and gay relationships already are legitimate, gays already act as the heads of households and families, and no denial of equal rights is going to change that fact.
But that isn’t the only passive-aggressive attack.
To that end I need to make clear a few simple rules I have here – one’s that I have always had, but didn’t feel the need to make public before, but now feel compelled to.
First off I filter foul language – if you can’t say anything without dropping the f-bomb or referring to a body part in the crudest of terms, then it won’t get posted here. It is a pretty simple rule for most to follow, but some can’t seem to help themselves.
This is in response to posts of mine which occasionally have featured th-th-th, gasp!, the F-bomb!
There are three reasons I don’t stop anyone from saying “fuck” all they want on my website. One, I’m not a child. I can deal with it. Two, censorship is mostly crap. Three, it is an immature view of language to think it a good thing to curb any of its use. Words should be elastic, allowed to move and flow with the times, context, and even emotion. Sometimes a good go fuck yourself is the best available terminology; the magic is in its simplicity. I often intentionally use very simple, straight-forward titles for my posts to get my point across. Was anyone confused about what I was saying when I titled a post Andreas Moritz is a stupid, dangerous man? Was anyone befuddled as to where I was going when I said Deepak Chopra is not an intelligent man? I like to think I was pretty clear. And that was the whole point behind those titles. Sometimes simple words are needed when what’s behind the meaning is simple. There is no need to be an obtuse, pompous douche when there is so much more clarity in being short. But then there are times when a pretentious title is needed. For instance, when I wrote about the tenability of unsourced claims as they pertain to objective morality, I wasn’t trying to convey that an easy read was ahead. Philosophical styles differ markedly from most other ways of writing – and not in a way that makes them a breeze to peruse. For anyone who actually gives a rat’s ass about writing, it is abundantly clear that it is a mistake to unnecessarily corner language and only allow what feels good. Language is expression; express it.
Secondly, I don’t post personal attacks or responses to them.
You know Michael, I almost never feel compelled to deal with anyone physically, but you are very lucky your puny little bank teller body is in Maine, because i would kick your butt from one side of the room to the other if you said that to my face. Of course you wouldn’t because you are a coward.
And along with that readers should know I never call or email strangers or people who I interact with online.
Again, Jack is directly responding to material from FTSOS, but he’s pulling the ol’ Ken Ham. He doesn’t want to link others here and get any exchange moving between users, I suppose. Fortunately, while Jack has a handful of creationist milling about his page, I have a bit of a larger audience. I encourage everyone reading this to venture over to Jack’s site and start leaving comments. Don’t spam the guy’s stuff, but make him actually response to something intelligent. I recommend starting with this incoherent post about atheism, but feel free to tear apart whatever seems appealing. Unlike Jack, I don’t want to pretend I’m your boss.
Recently I saw an atheist claim that ‘spiritual beliefs do not equal religious beliefs’. This may be true, but for an atheist to say so is a bit like a vegetarian lecturing on the best way to prepare a steak.
Surprise, I’m that atheist.
This analogy is just so awful. First, an atheist has no religion. That does not mean an atheist has no knowledge of religion or is unable, like Jack, to tell the difference between a real world phenomenon and a nebulous term that always needs to be defined before being used. Second, aren’t theists always claiming that atheism is a religion? In Jack’s bad analogy, atheism is very unlike religion. Isn’t it amazing just how often these people undermine their own silly claims?
So a quick wrap-up (because this post is way longer than I ever intended): Jack is a creationist like Ken Ham who refuses to link back to those who criticize him; he does not understand how to parallel socially important issues because (also like Ken Ham) he is a bigot; and finally, he apparently does not pay close enough attention to FTSOS. Say something stupid loudly enough, like Christopher Maloney or Andreas Moritz, or cross me in a magnificently stupid way like Rawn and Judy Torrington or Lt. J Christopher Read, and I have no issue posting and posting and tearing apart what I see as a wrong on my website (and for all five of those people, publishing and distributing stories all around my hometown, including Maloney’s own neighborhood). I mean, honestly. Have I not been clear? Has there been confusion as to what I am willing to do to get my point across? Do people not realize that to do something for the sake of science does not simply mean to act in a way that shows passion for science because science is good, but it also means to stand up to bad actions, bad behavior, lowly thoughts, and dishonest methods?
Filed under: Atheism/Humanism, Creationism, Misc, Religions, Same-sex marriage | Tagged: Andreas Moritz, Censorship, Christopher Maloney, Coward, Jack Hudson, Judy Torrington, Ken Ham, Language, Lt. J. Christopher Read, Quack quack quack, Rawn Torrington | 2 Comments »
Thought of the day
Posted on April 17, 2010 by Michael
Andreas Moritz insists on raising my ire over and over. Christopher Maloney, on the other hand, has remained pretty quiet. And who gets post after post after post about him on here?
Congratulations to Maloney for being smarter than Moritz. It isn’t much of an accomplishment, but I suppose it’s something. (And, hey, unlike Moritz, I bet Maloney knows what DNA is.)
Filed under: Misc | Tagged: Andreas Moritz, Christopher Maloney, Quack quack quack, Thought of the day | 1 Comment »
For the Sake of Science 