Google Analytics Blows That Out of the Water
Popular online atheist and anti-theist polemicist Bob Seidensticker and one of his clone-sycophants claimed that I was trying to use his site merely to drum up traffic on mine. Their words will be in green and blue, respectively.
This is the guy that I banned, and explained why in great detail (because he’s a big shot atheist online). Three days later I saw this nonsense. There was a huge flatulent fuss on his site: a “feeding frenzy” against me. It’s one of the funniest things I’ve ever observed online (and that’s sayin’ somethin’!). One of the more entertaining and humorous motifs among many (I almost lost my dinner, laughing) was this charge, that I blew out of the water with objective facts:
“MR”: Clearly using you to try to drum up traffic to his site. Not sure how that helps him when he just turns around and bans everyone. Guy seems a little mental to me, though. This isn’t normal behavior unless you’re a 13 year old.
Bob Seidensticker: Is he just trying to get clicks on his posts?? Pathetic. [link]
Nice try. First of all, I was second in traffic for the last month of records at Patheos Catholic, out of some 65 blogs. Secondly, we have a way to actually see what is generating traffic, called Google Analytics (Bob can do this for his site, too). Checking out mine for the period of July 1st to now, I see that the top ten most-visited posts have nothing to do with atheism:
1. Cain and his wife
3. Papal guidance
4. Death penalty
5. Biblical canon
6. Death penalty
7. Early development of the papacy
8. Luther’s view of priestly celibacy
9. Titles: “Catholic” or “Roman Catholic”
10. Death penalty
Looking at the next ten most popular, I see two articles about atheism. Two out of top 20 hardly suggests that I have to rely on Bob‘s site (or any atheist site or interaction with them) to drive traffic to mine. It’s ridiculous, and those are the objective stats to prove it. This isn’t a normal “argument” unless you are a three-year-old.
To his credit, Bob acknowledged the stats (he could hardly deny them), but then he just made another potshot:
As for MR’s comment, he’s just trying to make sense of your actions. And they don’t make sense. And that could just be our fault–we assume that acting like a thoughtful adult is the best route. If you’re succeeding by being a petulant schoolyard bully, that is surprising.[For those who would like to see multitudinous examples of Bob and his clone-followers acting like “thoughtful adult[s]” be sure to visit just the one “discussion” thread which was a “feeding frenzy” against me. You’ll see in about thirty seconds that his standards for discourse are vastly different than mine. It will be most “enlightening”, I guarantee. Bob complained about my merely posting what he and others said about me in this thread, and wanted me to take it down. Too bad: live with it! It’s public. If I am to be lied about by a bunch of fools, the very least I can do in response, is simply expose the idiotic inanities]
MR, undaunted, continued on in the face of all evidence:
Still doesn’t mean you aren’t trying to use Bob to drum up traffic to your site. And your behavior is still that of a 13 year old, though it appears others appear to find you even more immature. Have you been drinking or something? This is not normal behavior.
For those who would like to see how Seidensticker attempts to “argue” against Christianity and the Bible, I have now written 32 direct refutations of his nonsense (after he himself challenged me to make replies): all completely ignored by him.
My banning of him on my blog and Facebook page has no relation to whether or not he can answer. These posts are public to all. All he has to do is reply on his blog, and then notify me of it by email: apologistdave [at] gmail [dot] com. Then I will counter-reply. But he can’t use the lame excuse that his banning on my blog makes it impossible for him to reply. Thus, it appears that he is intellectually (not technically) unable to do so.
Lastly, Bob himself bans people from his blog. He banned me. Many (if not most) atheists do so (to different degrees, but they definitely do). They are no different from Christians in that regard. I ban when someone doesn’t abide by my simple rules of conduct, which have been consistently enforced the entire 22-year time that my blog has been online. Absolutely anyone is welcome and will not be banned, as long as they conduct themselves in a civil fashion. Banning has absolutely nothing to do with what a person believes, and everything to do with how he or she conducts himself. I’m sure I’ve banned far more Christians than atheists.
(originally 8-11-18 on Facebook)