The Orbit is still fighting a SLAPP suit! Help defend freedom of speech, click here to find out more and donate!

16 thoughts on “Poo at a Wall, Part II (Updated)

  1. 1

    I guess they forgot the blog post about 6 months back where we reminded them that I was in your wedding and witnessed you changing your name. Kelly too, for that matter. Good grief, this is the best use they can come up with for their time????!!!

  2. 3

    If this ‘questioning your real identity’ thing is serious for them, then, my god are they are inept.

    If this is just to pull at your sleeves to demand attention, then, my god they are pathetic.

    If they have Nothing better to do with their time, then, my. god. What good that carbon could go to otherwise….

  3. 6

    [Reads to the end, and notes the “Perfect blogger for a skeptic website” link.]

    [Clicks it.]

    [Jaw hits the floor.]

    Will Dunning and other capital-S Skeptics throw their support behind anybody who demonstrates sufficient loyalty to the tribe, regardless of skeptical skill? That could explain why Sara Mayhew has chalked up four consecutive TAM visits

  4. 7

    Wait, what?
    They’re playing loose and fast with information, get everything wrong and then spin a whole conspiracy theory about your husband engaging in criminal activity, because that’s much more likely than them being wrong?
    I also have a bridge in New York, left to me by my esteemed late great-uncle. Do you think they’d be interested in buying it?

  5. 8

    Well Ambrosia did come to my attention first by asserting @Aratina and JT Eberhard were one in the same person, don’t know if she still thinks that. She went on a run of accusing everyone of being socks and “knowing” who they really are that I cannot remember who was meant to be whose sock. Then I pointed out she had a completely made up assertion about Ophelia in one of her ElevatorGATE blog posts. Hardly a surprise but she had promised to change anything I could prove was erroneous. She refused to even acknowledge the error or attempt to prove her assertion. I think she is a perfect addition to a convicted fraudsters “skeptic” family. They only need to give Rich “Walkout” Sanderson a guest spot and the line up will be complete.

  6. 11

    and….she didn’t want to read the opening paragraph (not even in the comments!!) where you point out that there were witnesses at your wedding, one being me, when you changed your name.

    I suppose I could also be a sock, but I’m a pretty boring, not-very-controversial sock. I also only comment in places you wouldn’t NEED a sock – here, Ophelia’s blog, and Miri’s, and sometimes Jason’s.

    If this all goes back to the ‘pseudo’ comment, then they are being unwittingly proud of their reading-comprehension fail.

  7. 13

    I’m confused. Granted that these slyme are showing extreme, comical ineptitude at whatever it is they’re trying to do here…just what IS that, anyway?

    I mean, let’s say, for sake of argument, that “Stephanie Zvan” was a pseudonym. What would that prove? Why would that matter? What, in short, is the point?

  8. 14

    Flewellyn –

    The slimepitters and associates have been criticized for using anonymity and sock puppets to attack people. They think if they can prove any FTBlogger is not using their legal name it’s a gotcha, because to them the “to attack people” part is too nuanced.

Comments are closed.