Who Let That Camel In Here?

Sweet Merciful Moloch, we’ve hit the jackpot this time. Not one but two news blogs have jumped from Freethought Blogs to Patheos.

First off, there’s Chris Hallquist, a stalwart of the atheosphere for years now. He’s the author of UFOs, Ghosts, and a Rising God, and he’s working on a new work, Angry Atheists?: Why the Backlash Against Popular Atheism Is Silly, which he is “beta testing” at his blog. Go over and give it a read. Hallquist brings a good rigor to the atheist channel, since he’s focused on philosophy and counter-apologetics.

The second is our old friend Daniel Fincke of Camels with Hammers. Daniel named his blog after a lesser-known spin-off of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles franchise, which featured four mutant camels named after famous philosophers who battled robots with various types of hammer. In honor of his heroes, Daniel wears a mask, fights crime and occasionally blogs. He’s known for his short, concise posts and pictures of cats. Give it a look, it’s Fincke-tastic!

(Patheos’ crack team of fact-checkers assures me that nothing after that first sentence is accurate, so I feel confident that it meets our usual standards.)

Both blogs are more philosophically inclined than … whatever it is we do here, so I feel like the atheist channel has really gained a solid backbone.

  • Dutchhobbit

    Three people from FtB to here. Is FtB dying?

    • UrsaMinor

      It’s just a flesh wound.

    • vorjack

      Apparently, Pathos pays more. JT and Dan both mentioned that.

  • http://patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/ Daniel Fincke

    vorjaaaaaaaackkkkk

    Thanks for the welcome. I’m glad to finally learn the meaning of the phrase “camels with hammers”!

    Can you e-mail me? I’d like to ask you something but it’s impossible to find an e-mail for you and Daniel, except the automatic submission form which I imagine sends messages to that garbage compactor from Star Wars.

    Thanks!
    Dan

  • Dhoelscher

    Are vorjack and Daniel Florien the same person? If so, is that person the only one who blogs under the unreasonable faith banner? If so, please know that, for a person like myself doing research, three names for one blog is a confusing mix. The energy I’ve had to expend trying to figure this out has definitely been beyond reasonable. How about going a little easier on the people who take an interest in what you have to say?

    • UrsaMinor

      And how much time and energy did it take to do what you just did and type a post asking the question? Not much.

      The original Unreasonable Faith blog had some more info posted up front (I believe it called vorjack “managing editor” or something like that), but that seems to have gotten last in the last two moves to a new host.

      OTOH, even absent this information, it’s easy to deduce, from the fact that there’s a Submissions page and instructions on how to submit articles, that articles from people who are not Daniel Florien may appear from time to time on the blog. And Daniel is clearly identified as the owner of the blog on the About page. There’s even a way to message him on the Contact page if you have a question. This is not rocket science.

    • Custador

      The blog belongs to Daniel, but Vorjack is the major writer for it, and I contribute every now and again. I have to wonder why it particularly matters to you? Why is this something you need to expend time and energy trying to figure out?

    • Elemenope

      No, no, and seriously? It’s a pretty standard arrangement the Internet over: the masthead gives the title of the blog, and the byline of each post indicates just who wrote that blog post.

      • Elemenope

        Oh wow, now I kinda feel bad for the guy. Three posts in five minutes.

    • Noelle

      People do research here?

      • UrsaMinor

        Why not? You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We’re perfect subjects for all sorts of graduate dissertations in sociology.

  • Dhoelscher

    Sigh.
    Jeez, ask a couple of legitimate questions as part of a writing project aimed at furthering the cause of the atheist movement and the responses mostly range from unhelpful to gratuitously insulting.For a minute there it seemed as though I was on FtB.
    When I asked my questions it would have been well for me to remember that there is a submissions tab, the guidelines in which, as I recall, do in fact connote that other people besides DF may be writing on the blog. Moreover, had I been writing the comment during the day rather than, as I recall, in the middle of the night (Sri Lanka time) I like to think I would have had the good sense to express my concern through the contact button rather than here.
    But, Ursa Minor, are such mistakes justification for insults (e.g. “it’s easy to deduce … This is not rocket science”) or for telling me, when in fact you have no idea, how much time I spent on this matter the other night? I hope you grow up soon.
    Dear Custador: Thank you for the information. To answer your question, the reason it matters to me is that I’m writing a long article for a magazine on the general lack of attention to issues of class in the atheist movement and I was wondering whether the couple of pro-labor, anti-poverty articles I found on UF were written by the same person. Were I able both to find a third such example on UF and to source it to the same individual, I would mention that person in the article by way of giving credit where it is due. Now, however, after the reception I’ve gotten here, I’m not going to do the further checking that such a move would require. Is that unfair to any blogger here who deserves mention in my piece? I don’t think so. Therein I do not claim to list every exception to the problem I’m complaining about in my article.
    To Elemenope: “No, no, and seriously? It’s a pretty standard arrangement the Internet over: the masthead gives the title of the blog, and the byline of each post indicates just who wrote that blog post.” Yes, seriously. Imagine, please, that you are fairly new to the atheosphere in general and to UF in particular. And note that when one clicks “vorjack” or “custador” on one of their posts one gets no information whatever about who those people are. Do you still want to imply that I’m daft and that “each post indicates just who wrote that blog post”? Seriously?
    One more thing: In my newcomer experience here, as I clicked on a dozen or so posts at UF the only names I saw were vorjack and DF. That led me to infer, wholly reasonably I think, that maybe for some reason or other that I am not privy to vorjack was not a guest submitter but another name for DF. If any of you don’t understand how this could be confusing, well, I don’t know what to tell you except that this seems to me clearly one of those cases when you ought to give a guy a break.

    • Custador

      If you click on an author’s name in an article, it should take you to a list of other articles they’ve written. Except for me – There are apparently two Custadors (actually they’re both me, but I had to create a new account after a server migration, so they show up separately).

    • UrsaMinor

      Double sigh.

      I’m perfectly willing to give newbies a break. Most of them don’t show up and complain in their very first post that someone else’s blog isn’t arranged to their liking, and I don’t know of a blog of any sort that is set up with the convenience of unexpected drive-by researchers in mind.

      You could have simply asked the nice neutral question “I see multiple posters. Whose blog is this?” and you would have gotten a helpful response right off the bat. You could have said that the authorship was not clear to you without implying that the way things are done has caused you personal inconvenience. The sense of disapproval and entitlement in the statement “The energy I’ve had to expend trying to figure this out has definitely been beyond reasonable.” is astounding. I don’t know why you would expect it to conform to your personal requirements in the first place. And if you’re any sort of serious academic researcher, you should know that waltzing in to a internet forum that you want to study and implying that it needs to make changes is a pretty piss-poor way of conducting research.

    • Yoav

      Maybe it’s my nature as a suspicious bastard but with each post you make the less I believe your story. You imply that you’re a professional writer and yet you’re unable to figure out a byline, would you have the same difficulty when referencing an article from the New York Times opinion pages? And then there is the unrelated jab at FtB that make me even more suspicious that you’re actually a liar for jesus who is trolling for offense so he can reinforce his preconception of rude atheists. The comment sections on some FtB blogs, particularly Pharyngula, can be a little rough on people being deliberately obtuse but if you only care about the articles then why would you even bother with the comments and if you really cared about the interface between atheism and social justice then some of the FtB blog or the A+ forum are a much more logical place to go.

      • Custador

        I think he might actually have been trawling for the real identities of contributors. I can’t prove that in any way, of course, but I think I’ll keep an eye out for similarly suspicious posts for a while.

  • Dhoelscher

    To UrsaMinor:
    Astounding huh?
    Let me get this straight. You can be rude and that’s OK (I have to infer that since you ignore my observations about your childish insults), but if I dare express a little frustration in a way I’ve already admitted included mistakes on my part, it’s a problem worthy of severe condemnation.
    Wow.
    I suggest you do a little research of your own and study the red herring fallacy.
    “Drive-by researchers” … that dysphemism makes you look as mean as you are rude.
    I ought to have written “I see multiple posters…” As I indicated, at the time it seemed reasonable to think that vorjack and DF were the same person. So your advice makes no sense.
    As to your comments about my research methods, when I wrote “The energy I’ve had to expend trying to figure this out has definitely been beyond reasonable” I was feeling just as much a sense of conviviality born of a feeling of solidarity with what I took to be the bright, well-meaning person (people, as I now know) behind the blog as I was feeling the already mentioned frustration. Unfortunately, the possibility of such behavioral nuance seems beyond your ability to imagine on your own.
    I’m new the world of atheist blogs, but not so new that I haven’t noticed the presence on them of hundreds of people like yourself–mean, rude, and sophistical. Often makes me despair of the future success of the movement.
    If you’re inclined to respond you might want to save your time and energy. I won’t read anything else you direct at me, or at anyone else for that matter.

    • Kodie

      I think you would have gotten the same type of response from any blog on any topic and here you are singling out atheists. Who are these authors? How familiar are you with typical blog formats? Some blogs are by one author and some bloggers invite guest contributions or have a regular few as part of a blog team. Daniel had at some point made a post about himself, but most of the others have just been here a while and needed no formal introduction to most readers.

      What you did was kind of get caught asking a question about a community you know nothing about. It’s weird that you have not spent enough time reading this blog to know the cast of authors but you want to use it as part of your research on atheist blogs.

      To answer your question, the reason it matters to me is that I’m writing a long article for a magazine on the general lack of attention to issues of class in the atheist movement and I was wondering whether the couple of pro-labor, anti-poverty articles I found on UF were written by the same person.

      So you are trying to figure out how to credit the articles you’ve read, when the articles say “by _______”, what else are you trying to figure out? There are tabs at the top of the banner to navigate to information, but unnecessary. Maybe you find it less legitimate to credit someone who only goes by the name “vorjack” or “Custador,” it’s my understanding “Daniel Florien” is also a pseudonym. The articles say who they’re written by.

      • Custador

        Yep. Daniel Florien is not Dan’s real name. Actually, even I don’t know Dan’s real name, and I’m not rude enough to ask it. We all have our reasons for writing under aliases, though a few of the regulars here know who Vorjack and I actually are. I would think it would be extremely difficult for American contributors to maintain their output here if it became known generally what sort of blog they were writing for – Daniel is a self employed guy in a majority Christian country, and some of those Christians are pretty judgemental and free with their persecution of people they don’t like – Including atheists. As for me, I work in a profession where I don’t want my real name plastered all over the internet, because it might affect my nurse/patient relationships. I don’t judge people by their religion, and I don’t treat religious patients any differently to anybody else – But I don’t want them thinking I might, and I don’t want to introduce a possible reason for them to mistrust me right off the bat. So I stay Custador and leave my real name at home.

        • John C

          Can we just call you [edit]? ;)

          • Custador

            Fairly sure I just got done explaining why my real name isn’t on here, John!

            • Kodie

              I don’t know why you you have to yell at him, Todd.

            • John C

              Ha, sorry Custy, just messing with ya. Take care.

    • Custador

      Dhoelscher,

      Please step back and read your first post with an objective eye. It was pretty arrogant, and quite rude. That some of the regulars chose to escalate is not surprising given that most people who come here with a hostile attitude are only here to argue and spout nonsense. You could have just conceded that when it was pointed out the first time (in quite calm tones, I think), but you escalated the hostility, and you’re doing the same now.

      Chill.

      • Dhoelscher

        I have done as you asked and reread my initial post. I see neither arrogance nor rudeness nor hostility. I can see why some people would be tempted to take it the wrong way, but I cannot understand, and like you I will not condone, the fact that commenters for the most part rushed to the judgment that I was rude rather than make a mature and good faith effort to understand where I was coming from. That you are now calling my first questions rude and arrogant, and me hostile, even after I’ve explained some of my thinking (there is more I could say that would further demonstrate the soundness of my position, but I can see now the wisdom and logic of what I would say would be lost on everyone here) and even though I clarified the spirit in which I subjectively experienced writing the questions is very rude as well as quite presumptuous on your part. From now on I will ignore this blog.

        • Troutbane

          Wow, if you cannot see that your responses and posts were quite rude, then I worry about your general outlook in life. You come across as an academic snob who does no wrong, which is somewhat grating. If you’ve read more than a handful of posts here, you will see that everyone here is quite blunt, as in “tear off the band-aid” blunt in their discussions, of which I find the pure honesty somewhat refreshing. Had you humbly attempted to explain your first post, you might have gotten some return apologies. You did not. Trust me, these guys can come across as assholes if you are new here; they blasted one of my first posts quite heavily for which I left for some time. But I realized that you can’t get butt hurt because someone is terse with you on the Internet, especially if you come into the room swinging wildly.
          For goodness sake, just get over your ego shit already.

        • Custador

          Then you are either irretrievably arrogant and self-deceiving, or you’re fundamentally dishonest. The very first thing you did when you commented was to criticise the blog for not being laid out in a manner that suits your own unique purpouses, and yet you still insist that everybody else is at fault except you. That’s bordering on a severe personality disorder. Seriously.

          • UrsaMinor

            I don’t think he missed a single one of the standard clichés in his farewell speech, did he? If several people independently take your head off and hand it to you on a platter and you carry on as if nothing had changed, it’s a good sign that you weren’t using that head to begin with.

            One can only hope that he was serious about ignoring this blog from now on. But if he hasn’t learned anything from this encounter (and I see zero sign of reflection or introspection going on), then he’s going to be sporting a brand new bodily orifice in his nether regions every time he visits a new blog.

        • Kodie

          The internet will tear you a new asshole when you ask a stupid question with an obvious answer. You were actually given the answer and you complain about attitude. WELCOME TO THE INTERNET! Fuckbag.

          • Troutbane

            Kodie, I must admit, initally I read what you wrote as “WELCOME TO THE INTERNET, Fuckbag”.
            But, I must say “WELCOME TO THE INTERNET! Fuckbag.” is a thousand times awesomer.
            +100 Intertnetz

            • UrsaMinor

              Glad to hear you got over your initial scare and came back, Troutbane. Believe it or not, I really am cuddlier than a porcupine most days. Today just isn’t one of them.

            • Kodie

              I was also mistreated by someone here when I began and it was all so,… he’d misunderstood something I said and stayed mad at me for a few rounds. No matter how hard I tried to clear it up, well, then he got defensive because now I’m calling him stupid, and then Elemenope stepped in. I actually tried to learn from the experience and be more patient with people than I actually am, but I’m so tired of doing it that way sometimes.

              Thanks for the Internetz and glad you stayed after your hazing ritual also.

            • Custador

              I think that might have been me…

            • UrsaMinor

              Not a chance, Custy. You are at least as cuddly as a porcupine every single day.

            • Kodie

              I remember the name and he wasn’t named Custador and doesn’t post here anymore unless you used to go by another name. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2009/05/how-do-atheists-face-despair/ You were there then and you only made one comment in that thread. You drink beer.

              Unless you were talking to Troutbane, in which case, it might have been you. Anyway, asking who wrote the articles when they each say who they were written by is a stupid question, and maybe the pile-up and attitude was uncalled for, because not answering was the correct way to handle it, although it doesn’t vent as much resentment. OTB: IF. This is the internet; why are there still helpless and illiterate people?
              “Midvale School for the Gifted”:
              http://www.newmediaist.com/files/FarSide.jpg

        • Sunny Day

          “I have done as you asked and reread my initial post. I see neither arrogance nor rudeness nor hostility. ”

          How about reading for stupidity? Have you tried that.
          If you can’t navigate a webpage, things don’t look too good for your “research”.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X