Colin Snuggs is a pianist and skeptic from Dover ,
Kent South
Sudan , Somalia Yemen
Colin's attitude towards me is very strange. It's obvious he
dislikes me intensely and considers my work on HPANWO foolish and contemptible.
There are people I feel the same way about, although I don't feel the animosity
towards Colin that he does towards me. However, when I do I tend to avoid them,
keep them away from me and only even discuss them for therapeutic reasons, for
example see: http://hpanwo-tv.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/centaur.html.
Yet Colin's antipathy for me has inspired some sort of morbid obsession. For instance,
in this video he makes it clear he is still lurking on the HPANWO Forum, one
from which he has been permanently banned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRY46WIv9ks.
He also carried out a live vigil in the run up to my skeptic talk at New Horizons
St Annes, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EYKXwSA2g0
(See here for a recording of it: http://hpanwo-tv.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/skeptics-who-are-they-why-are-they.html).
Some of his spoofs are quite artistic, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lGaNnw8vqw.
I am honestly confused over this. Should I feel insulted or flattered? I don't
think Colin is a malicious man. We used to get on alright in the early days.
It's obvious that I give his life meaning and that's good to know. In fact if
it wasn't for me, what would he do with himself? He is driven to arms by his
opposition to me. Maybe he's not completely pathological. He does have other
interests that are helping him break his addiction. For instance he is a keen
piano player; in fact one of his forum nicknames was "the Dover
Liberace". He also likes football and supports Dover Athletic FC. So I
wish him well. Maybe in a few years he will have got me out of his system and
when somebody asks about me he will say: "Ben?... Ben who?"
See here for more
information: http://hpanwo-tv.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/michael-shermer-update.html.
26 comments:
That's not the most accurate blog, Mr Jones. Are you ridiculing me by trying to make out my opposition to your claims are just stupid? You're the one who threw the resin in the Thames in an undisclosed location so the Men in Black wouldn't fish it out. Need I say anymore? I bet you wouldn't treat someone like that who gave you money and help all the time would you? If you are going to make extraordinary claim you should provide extraordinary evidence. And you should expect people to counter your claims, which I have done.
Thank you.
YOU are accusing ME of ridicule? Everything you do is about ridiculing me
You seemed to have missed my point. You are the one who makes the extraordinary claims without any evidence, like I have stated. Ridicule is the only option available until you correct this. Also, at this juncture you might like to clear up the passport issue as well.
And you are ridiculing me by belittlement. As if I am a mere fly on the back of a mighty lion.
Ben mate I'm not involved here but it seems to me that you don't debate with people. You come out with stuff that is often absurd and you claim in this article that woo-woo is anything that is non skep. That is like saying something is only defined by what it is not which is simplistic rubbish. You should do a part time university course to give you discipline
Colin, why don't you post under your real name? I DO provide evidence for my claims and all you do is reply "hot piff" or ignore me. As for the passport issue? You know my feels on that. Have you been talking to Paul Armstrong on FB?
And you, "Anon", should ask your real identity, Colin, why he is pretending to be more than one person. ;-)
I thought you would respect someone's right to remain anonymous. I'm writing a dissertation on the conspiratorial community for my sociology degree from a perspective of emerging sub cultures and belief systems. I'm interested in how conspiracy folk reject the scientific method and place the burden of proof on the rejecter. Have you heard of Bertrand Russell's teapot? I should Wiki it if you haven't
You really think you are something special don't you? Why are people not allowed to criticise you especially with the wild claims you make? Remember the resin in the Thames incident? How did that experiment go by the way? Anyway, it looks like I'll have to do another vlog to get my side of the story across, again.
People are perfectly entitled to criticize me. I know about Russell's teapot; It's like Dawkins' flying spaghetti monster or the pink unicorn etc. It just annoys me when I reply to you and you carry on as if I haven't said anything.
Alright, Colin. I'll debate you.
I'm glad you know about these things. In terms of epistemology don't you think rigour is essential for how can we determine if something is objectively real unless we have a verifiable scientific method? The conspiracy community tend to use intuition and rumour and it seems to me that they believe things that they wish were true. Children do this but only the scientific method of starting out with a null hypothesis which is tested and only if found something exists is evidence built up through accretion
Anon, I think that's an inaccurate assessment. If anything it's conspiracy skeptics who tend to assume intuitive and rumoured tales of the official story are correct and ignore the null hypothesis. The recent work of Prof Karen Douglas is well worth examining. You may well enjoy my forthcoming public debate with Colin.
(I deleted your second impatient comment).
OK but you ignored my question on the need for rigour and what methods you employ to make sure something is objectively real and not just wishful thinking?
I deliberately ignored your question: "...don't you think rigour is essential for how can we determine if something is objectively real unless we have a verifiable scientific method?" because I consider it unnecessary. It kind of answers itself in the article, with what I wrote on the 25th line. I'm surprised you failed to understand my point because I believe it is perfectly clear.
Hmm I can't see how you address rigour and method in that article on Colin's Elbows. My research tells me is that conspiracy types are anti science anti rationalist and readily accept spurious information they deem as "esoteric" presumably to set them apart from "the sheeple" to confer feelings of superiority. They start from the premise that something exists and then cherry pick what they see as "evidence". David Icke calls himself a "researcher" yet he doesn't seem to know what real research is. If someone tells him that they saw a member of the royal family shaprshift into a lizard then he believes them because he wants to believe, he needs to believe, his industry depends on disseminating stuff like that. Maybe with the end of organised religion David Icke type conspiracy theories address that other worldly need that some people have. I'm interested in this sub culture that rejects reason and I see it as a form of mass hysteria.
glad you agreed to a debate with colin , looking forward to it - it has to be better than the letdown that was bedroom loser bolerhatman
I have looked at this Colin chap's blog and I can relate well to him as though we speak the same language. He is pro science as I am and he clearly has no time for people who make wild claims and reject the need for evidence. I would love to see this debate too and be great if you two debate scientific method or at least address it. I hope Ben that you dont evade it as I feel you have with my questions to be honest mate.
Unfortunately Ben there are people like Colin who try to bring down and rui other peoples work, either because they are:
Jealous
Feel threatened
Close minded
Stupid
Stalker like minded
Weird
Bored
I have been at the forefront of such idiotic and ridiculous behaviour from the Canadians n Ontario, but then they now know not to do this because Karma is a very real thing....
Ignore him Ben he won't gain anything from it.
Darren Perks
Why is Colin Snuggs posting as 'ANON'...
If I try to evade it you have a record here of my dishonesty. I'm quite looking forward to it actually. I'll be perfectly civil to Colin, just as I was to the other skeptics I've had public debates with.
OK fine but may I ask why you
didn't publish here a polite question on science and skepticism that I posted this morning?
And I'll be civil to you, too. But I will wish to ask you questions about your ideas and what evidence you have to confirm them as possible theories. Let's get this things going. How about a Skype chat on Friday evening when me boys have gone to bed, 9pm say? Promise I will not swear or use ad hominem. I can behave when I need to and I don't want to give you an excuse to terminate the conversation. Fair enough, yes?
Anon, I have published all your comments. I don't know what you mean.
Agreed, Malcolm. I've emailed you.
Post a Comment