Sergey takes down the Birdman

I've known of this idiot for some time, as I unfortunately stumbled upon his shit-festival of a website about a year ago.

It's discouraging that some people are capable of flaunting such unadulterated hate as a gimmick.

I love when people describe themselves as "politically incorrect". It's like they're wearing a sign that says, "I'm an idiot, ignore me." E.g., Carlos Mencia.

(I'll grant an exception for Bill Maher, although even he didn't call himself politically incorrect, to my knowledge, he just used the term for the title of his show.)

Dear God, will these people ever learn? This guy reminded me of my grandmother's German friend and the debates they used to have over whether or not the Holocaust ever happened. Her friend was in such deep denial that I think it was completely ingrained; my grandmother did all she could to teach me about what really happened. (No, my grandmother wasn't Jewish or anything like that, she simply had a sense of morality and a social conscience.) "Birdman" is, as far as I'm concerned, a raging lunatic whose line of thinking is so grossly distorted as to be completely nonsensical; it's people who write garbage like this that cause problems for so many others. Somewhere I've heard the phrase "Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it." That's why we need to keep the memory of the Holocaust alive...so millions more people don't die in the name of "ethnic cleansing" or because some hideous, subhuman scumbag like Hitler manages to rise to power again. There are, of course, other places in the world where this kind of killing goes on still...but if we can prevent even one person from being killed because of their ancestry, then we have accomplished something. If only humanity could learn to respect differences instead of being hateful and vengeful and using their powers to harm others. I know, that's too idealistic for this crazy world we live in...

I waded through a little bit of his web page.

It's the usual outrageous sense of self-importance...claiming to know Nobel Laureates...being listed in the "Who's Who"...claiming millions of hits on his web page...posting his entire legal battle over fedding birds...and saying he's a better poet than Shakespeare.

Such vast egos...and such intense hatred...such ideas do not go well together.

"Birdman" has been around for a long time--he sent me one of his books when I was editor of the Arizona Skeptic, which I critiqued in the September/October 1991 issue. Bryant responded in the May 1992 issue.

In all fairness being politically incorrect can be cool, but only if you do it without being factually incorrect. That of course is where the birdman fails.

I'll grant an exception for Bill Maher.

I won't. His variety of "political incorrectness" veers off into woo and antivaccination misinformation.

"In all fairness being politically incorrect can be cool, but only if you do it without being factually incorrect."

Absolutely. Being poltically incorrect just for the sake of it is idiotic (and is very politically correct these days).

Orac, JFYI, some obnoxious silly denier whom I call Chickenvox invokes your name at

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/09/absence-of-logic-res…

No argument there Sergey.

Yeah, Sergey took him apart all right, especially if you think ad-hominems and insults are effective. Only problem is Birdman gets 1,000,000 hits a day and Sergey gets 100. I wonder who's getting the word out better?

If "Jones" likes as hominems and insults as "arguments", then, of course, it's not surprising that he likes Birdbrain Bryant.

My posting, on the other hand, was filled with logical and sourced arguments. Which Birdbrain couldn't address. As for Birdbrain getting 1,000,000 hits - are you so stupid as to believe him? Yes, you are.

Just click on his "extreme tracker" icon, and see the stats, which show an average of 334 daily...

BWAHAHAHA! Dumbo.

OK, the last claim turns out to be misleading - that's the stats only for his main page. But acc. to http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Intro/Intro-BirdmanRanking.htm he gets 3,000 or so _visits_ per day (or at least that was true for the beginning of the year). It is this number which should be compared with the hits the HC gets.

His hits stats are simply ridiculous. Take April 2006. 1155221/2767=417. Do you honestly believe that in one day each visitor of Birdbrain's site reads more than 400 pages?

"Political correctness"

Since when does "misleading bother you? Anw when you say "misleading" do you mean like claiming there were 4M gassing victims at Auschwitz then later changing it to 1.5M? Or do you mean the kind where Yankel Wernik claims that the Nazis touched a match to corpses and they spontaneously burned?

BTW, how many hits/day do you get?

Thank you in advavce.

Jones

1) "Since when does "misleading bother you? "

What do you mean? Be a little bit more clear.

2) "Anw when you say "misleading" do you mean like claiming there were 4M gassing victims at Auschwitz then later changing it to 1.5M?"

No. From the above it is clear you don't understand what "misleading" means. Also, who claimed 4M gassings in Auschwitz?

3) "Or do you mean the kind where Yankel Wernik claims that the Nazis touched a match to corpses and they spontaneously burned?"

Where's that?

4) "BTW, how many hits/day do you get?"

Look it up.

Popularity = Troof

Because history is altered by chronomatic magic when some guy gets a lot of hits on his website in the future (i.e. today).

Thanks for the subject change, btw.

Let's try to get back to coherentland.

BTW, how many hits/day do you get?

Snarky, eh?

It depends on what meter you use. By Sitemeter I average around 2,000 unique visits a day during the week, about half as many during the weekend. By Google Analytics, I average between 2,500-3,000 unique visits during the week, about half as many during the weekend. (All of us at ScienceBlogs have come to the conclusion that Sitemeter probably undercounts unique visits by about 25% while Google Analytics seems to undercount page views.) By Sitemeter, I'm approaching 800,000 total unique visits since December 2004.

Regardless of the relative traffic of this blog, Sergey's blog, and the Birdman's site, argumentum ad populum (argument by popularity) is a logical fallacy. A blog's popularity is often not related at all to the quality of the arguments published there. For example, Michelle Malkin probably gets at least 20 times the traffic I do, and she's an utter twit. Sergey's blog is excellent, even though he gets less traffic than I do. (Countering Holocaust denial is a rather narrow niche, unlikely to attract mass popularity, no matter how good he is.) Certainly he is more well-versed in the history of the Holocaust than I am.

By the way, you (and I suspect the Birdman) should learn the definition of a "hit." Let Kevin Leitch teach you:

There is a common misconception that 'a hit' means a person has visited a site. Not so. A 'hit' refers to one object on a page being accessed once. For example, if a user visits a page that contains 14 images and nothing else then 14 hits will be registered. If we wanted to get really worked up by 'hits' we could all add a million images to a web page and then as soon as one person visited that page - we'd have a million hits! - cool huh?

No, not really. I hope its clear why.

What's worth getting excited over in terms of web statistics are unique visitors . This refers to the amount of unique visitors that the site has received. Obviously, this is a much better indicator of how many users have actually seen your pages. But even this does not necessarily refer to people as search engines, RSS spiders and a whole host of other automated bots are counted as users too. But still, this is the best way to get a reliable approximation on how many people visited your site.

So, what have we learnt? Hits are nothing to get excited about.

I just recently discovered your brief comment on my website directing your readers to an article posted by 'Sergey' on his website which you gushingly claim has 'taken me down'. I haven't seen Sergey's piece yet (his blog is so obscure it doesn't seem to come up except on blue moons), but I doubt that I have much to fear, as people who have a genuine argument against me write to ME -- they don't hide their argument in some obscure blog. But of course in writing to ME they risk getting their but beaten in public (I almost always post and respond to critical letters in my Weekly Letter which is posted on site), and that is why, after 7 years of hosting thebirdman.org, not very many people dare to confront me. (Sergey evidently knew better than to try.) That, however, is just plain old dishonesty -- 'taking down' somebody without even telling them that you are doing so -- and an act of dishonesty which, I might add, applies to you, since your 'dissing' me implies you have a beef with me, but are unwilling to confront me about it, altho you are quite happy to give your readers a sniggering direction to 'Sergey'.

And that is not the only dishonesty on your page. Old Jim Lippard had to weigh in with a link to his nasty review of my book 'Bryant's Law and Other Broadsides'. Well Jim may have a negative opinion of me, but Jim misrepresented himself to me in order to get a free copy of my book, so you can judge for yourself just how valid his 'honest opinion' is. That was not, I might add, the only dishonest act which Jim was guilty of with respect to our back-and-forth about my book, and if you want to read about it, the correspondence is published in my book 'Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Philosophy and Philosophers...' which is obtainable thru my website.

One final matter: Much discussion was given by your readers about the traffic at my site, but none apparently saw the complete discussion which I offer at http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Intro/Intro-BirdmanRanking.htm
Evidently they missed this discussion because it was prominently linked from the first page, and such links are evidently extremely difficult to see. (Note sarcasm.)

So much for your miserable webpage, and the miserable behavior of you and your readers. And kindly pardon me if I seem disrespectfully insolent.

-Birdman

CONTINUING MY EARLIER POST:

Having finally (after several tries, a change in security levels, rebooting, etc) I finally got a look at Sergey's 'takedown' of me. Well, Lo and Behold! Not merely was it just a congeries of insults with little or no content, but it was actually a sort of continuation of another effort at taking me down by Sergey's bunghole buddy Mathis, a compilation of exchanges between Mathis and me which was long ago posted in one or more of my Weekly Letters. I didn't leave the correspondence posted because it was of no special consequence -- Mathis himself was taken down rather successfully and, as I recall, departed our conversation yelping painfully with his tail between his legs. I guess Sergey thought he was doing Mathis a favor by resuscitating the argument, but he did so with the usual dishonesty of my opponents -- he didn't quote the original exchange in full, or even address the major issues, but just selected a few tiny points, such as whether a date I had cited was off by a year, and attempted to pawn this off to his readers as a Major Coup.

It is funny to me how liberals/lefties/antiracists always think they have the moral high ground, and for this reason delude themselves into believing -- apparently in a sort of modern antinomianism -- that this permits them to ignore facts and the arguments of their opponents, lie like crazy, and respond to their opponents with smears and denunciations rather than genuine arguments. But what is really funny is that the antiracists KNOW they are wrong -- they know it because you won't find any of them living in neighborhoods where there are any significant numbers of their 'equal' black or brown bruthas. We are all racists, for racism is a law of nature most commonly expressed as 'Birds of a feather flock together'; and the antiracists are going to become racists quicker than you can say Jack Sprat once they start to drown in the Rising Tide of Color. But by then it may be too late.

Because the holohoax is used as a distraction from the pervasive and pernicious power of the Israel lobby, as they guide our nations into ruin, to ignore political correctness is the only way to be honest about the very real, very present threat of Zionofascist takeover(well that has already happened in Canada) on our governments.

In soviet Canada Jewish groups were foremost in the warofterror, 'security certificate', and Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran war lobbying. They push for legislation to ban speech exposing them, and cry "Boohoo antisemitism!" even though they are the richest group in Canada, and if they just shut up and assimilate instead of engaging in nation-wrecking they would have it very good in Canada.

No one hates them for what they are, we hate them for what they do.

They are a far more dangerous threat than the chance that Birdman's mental emanations will turn you into a slavering Nazi(actually his arguments are quite well thought out and reasoned and not Nazi-like or fascist in the least, unlike the comments I've read here).

Bravo to Birdman for blasting this smug and self-satisfied smearfest, cover for their ossified thought patterns.

Well argued John and Anarchore. It is clear who wins the day here.

Some credit to Sergey for posting his own ass-kicking.

Hypocrites like Sergey and his amen crowd never cease to amaze me with their dishonesty. Live one way talk another, as John points out.

I suppose the only real benefit in posting to a collection like this is that one of those hits Sergey is lucky enough to score will see his deceptions exposed. I mean it is so clear isn't it? He talks about the use of ad hominem arguments by others as an admission of defeat while employing little else but that in his 'rebuttal'.

I was going to make a comment, but it seems that John Bryant and Anarchore have already summed it up - the guy running this blog is little more than a brainwashed shithead, period.

Birdman rocks! You room temp IQ's FAIL.

Who the hell is Sergay?

Should anyone want to observe a real battle of whits, read the link below as Birdman slaps the dog shit out of
Tom Clancy in a debate over racial and Holohoax issues.

http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/NetLoss/NetLoss-ClancyLtr.html

so you guys dont like the birdman because his ego is too big for you to handle and you say he is factually incorrect. Why dont you intellectual giants take him up on one particular point ? come on , just one point!! Why dont we start with whether or not any one has ever claimed the sacred four million at Auschwitz ! truth huuurts dont it!

If only there was a vaccination against liberalism.
Oh..hang on..I think there is. Its called an open mind and a REAL education. rhyl

I just noticed that John "Birdman" Bryant has responded here. In his comment he claims that "Jim misrepresented himself to me in order to get a free copy of my book" and that I've engaged in other dishonest actions with respect to him, though he doesn't say how I misrepresented myself or report any of my alleged dishonest actions.

I misrepresented nothing about myself and didn't even ask for a copy of his book--I had no intention of getting the book from him at all. I wrote to him to request a copy of an article he wrote critical of CSICOP, when I was collecting everything I could find written about CSICOP's handling of the "Mars effect" for my "Mars effect chronology." (This is a nearly but not quite exhaustive index of events, correspondence, and published articles about that controversy. That document is online as a Rich Text Format file here--it is a large file.)

Bryant voluntarily chose to send me a copy of his book that contained that article. He may actually believe that I somehow deceived him into sending me the book, but it's not the case. I don't expect I'll ever see or read his book on philosophy and philosophers that includes our correspondence, though I'll note that he never requested or received permission to publish anything I've written.

BTW, Orac, do you have logs that might show that the last few commenters are sock puppets?

Birdman slaps the dogshit out of Tom Clancy? Why I rather think it was the other way around. Anyone who knows me will be tell you that I'm about as un liberal as they come. The next Democrat candidate for President I vote for will be my first. I thnk that Western Civilization is in a state of serious decline, and the doctrines of the holy church of liberalism are as much to be blamed as anyone or anything. That being said, I don't want to be lead or saved by the "birdman" or anyone else like him. Is this who I should look to for salvation from the Nancy Pelosis and Barney Franks of the body politic? I already know the George W. Bushes of the world can't and won't. Maybe Western Civilization truly is doomed. One more thing birdman. I don't have a Mensa level IQ, but even I know there is no Santa Claus, but there was a Jewish Holocaust.