Dr.GH

Dee Dee Williams has posted that she confirmed that socrat has a Ph. D. in chemistry.

I am coming around to the socrat=sarfati p.o.v.

Jayjay

So we know he's Sarfati, TheologyWeb's moderators know he's Sarfati, and quite probably he himself knows he's Sarfati... but we continue to call him "Socrates" anyway to respect his "anonymity".

:boohoo:

EDIT: Anyway, my opinion is that whatever Sarfati wants to call himself in a message board is not a such big deal. If you want to nail him for something, those book reviews he allegedly writes about his own works (or those of other AiG propagandists) sounds like a lot more serious offense.

Bubba

Obviously, evolution is true because a loving divine being wouldn't have created a mean spirited sarcastic S.O.B. like Sorta-Farty as his defender.

Bubba

That place makes me a little bit ill.

Kevbo

So, who should be informed that Sarfati seems to be reviewing his own books?

Kevbo

Another update:

I decided to look carefully at the reviews posted by both "jonathansarfati" and "dave--f" on Amazon. Interestingly enough, they *do* review some of the same books. The reasons why they still may be the same person, other than their incredibly similar views and rhetoric, are as follows:

It seems that Sarfati can't even keep track of the books he's reviewing under his own name. He reviewed "The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis" by Hugh Ross twice during different times, and dave--f also has a review of this book.

Notice the similarity between these two sentences:

"But it's even more inexcusable that people didn't even bother to *check* the serious allegations before writing unstinted praises. Answers in Genesis has answered them all point-by-point on their site." -- Dave Francais

"Finally, *every single allegation* has been answered point-by-point by Answers in Genesis on its web site. Because of all this, it's just a shame that 'anti-stars' (negative numbers) aren't available for reviewer rankings." -- Jonathan Sarfati

hmmm...

Valentine Pontifex

If he reviewed it twice using his real name I could forgive that. If he has reviewed a lot of stuff he could be excused for loosing track.

However if he is reviewing the same thing multiple times via use of different names then it is dishonesty of the highest order and inexcusable to anyone who accepts ethics or morality.

Valentine Pontifex

Re: the nom de plume

I think he has two primary motivations:

1) He wants to say nasty things with "plausible deniablity" so they will not be used against him in the future.

2) He is trying out arguments to see how people react
to them.

He certainly is not using a pen name for privacy concerns since his real life persona is writing books and articles, giving speechs, appearing on webcasts, etc.

RufusAtticus

From my experience Socrates does have problems remembering what a thread is about.

Jimmy Higgins

I don't know. Socretes does well to relate any non-YEC view as related somehow to evolution. He also then attacks the credibility of the poster for being "outside" their realm of study in virtually every post. I mean who are the atheist scientists in the field of Biology to argue biology in there? Who am I to argue structural analysis as I merely have a BS in structural engineering (got my Fe, taking PE soon), trying to refute the holy word of Korean architects.

I just don't understand how we all can be so wrong on everything.

Luckily Socretes is there to explain so in a nice, professional manner.

NialScorva

If left to talk for more than 10 minutes, *every* creationist and IDiot sounds exactly alike. The lack of originality in the sect never ceases to amaze me. I would like to give new creationists I meet the benefit of the doubt and let them have a word, but within seconds they trod down the same predictable path. A path established by people like Safarti saying the same thing over thousands and thousands of times.

I don't deny the Safarti/Socrates connection, but using a "sound-alike" argument one could argue that there's only 3 actual creationists in existence, and the rest are just psuedonyms.