Rosa Rubicondior is an atheist from the UK who has been insisting that there is some great conspiracy at Choosing Hats to systematically delete comments submitted by atheists. Her harebrained conspiracy theory was easily dealt with in my latest post here – https://choosinghats.org/2011/12/a-brief-response-to-atheist-rosa-rubicondiors-conspiracy-theory. Rosa simply does not have a leg to stand on. Not only have a handful of the contributors to the site engaged in numerous public debates with atheists, but we have spent hours answering comments from atheists posted to this site – our site – in an attempt to answer their concerns, and this is to say nothing of the many posts here that are direct exchanges with atheist thinkers from other blogs (or our offline interactions with atheists). It is quite the understatement to say that Rosa’s conspiracy theory is bogus. It is downright ridiculous, and anyone who bothers to spend even a few minutes perusing the site can see why.
In my previous post I not only linked to an example of where almost 100 comments have been posted with atheists arguing against us, but pointed out that one of those comments belongs to Rosa here – https://choosinghats.org/2011/07/the-athiests-burden-of-proof/#comment-2784. Rosa has been complaining on Twitter that her comment had not been posted and even tweeted about it yesterday, but it turns out that the comment has been on our site for months. No sooner had Rosa finished eating her crow than she tried to spin the truth in an unsuccessful attempt to save face:
Rosa RubicondiorDecember 20, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Pleased to see you’ve at last found the moral courage and integrity to allow your readers to read the reply I posted all those months ago.
Or was it just the embarrassment and shame of being exposed as frauds which produced the change of mind?
Moral courage? Integrity? Rosa is hardly in a position to preach about those. Though Rosa is demonstrably wrong she persists in pushing her debunked conspiracy theory as though people will continue to believe it. Sadly, some people will continue to believe it. The atheists who take what Rosa has to say seriously (and believe it or not, there are many of them) will likely buy into Rosa’s silly idea that the profundity of her comment was so great it merited our having to suppress it. They will do so in spite of the clear evidence that the comment was posted to our site months ago. In fact, there is a response on Rosa’s comment that dates to only 10 days after Rosa’s having pressed the Submit button. Thus Rosa’s comment was approved and appeared on our site ten days after it was submitted at the latest. Rosa is not fooling anybody who bothers to think through her wacky charges of conspiracy for more than a few seconds. Let’s call a spade a spade. Rosa is a liar, and she is a bad one. In one of Sigmund Freud’s finer moments she has even projected her embarrassment and shame of being exposed as a fraud onto us. Rosa has offered deranged conspiracy theories. We have offered documentation. She is the fraud.
While there is a wealth of conclusive evidence provided above (as well as in my previous post), defectivebit has offered some more by way of a handful of links from Twitter. Even though Rosa’s comment was approved and appeared on our blog no later than October 11 (her post is dated October 1, and a response to her post is dated October 11), Rosa continued to whine about us deleting dissenting comments on November 12, a full month later. See the response from RazorsKiss here – https://twitter.com/RazorsKiss/status/135505573637660673 and note the dates. Note also that RazorsKiss links Rosa to her approved comment. When I wrote my previous post highlighting Rosa’s approved comment on our blog I was unaware of this Twitter exchange. RazorsKiss sent Rosa a link to her approved comment, and so it is highly unlikely that she has been ignorant of her comment’s presence this entire time. Rather, she has been lying.
The Twitter conversation continued with Rosa accusing us of deleting comments – https://twitter.com/RazorsKiss/status/135512243168231424. Rosa even falsely claimed that we had blocked her right before RazorsKiss explained, just as I did above, that the date of the response to her comment destroys her fatuous fabrications – https://twitter.com/RazorsKiss/status/135523112476356608:
Simple lesson in logic: That comment has replies from over a month ago. Ergo, it’s been visible at least a month.
Hilariously, Rosa sent RazorsKiss a screenshot of a comment that she had not submitted as her evidence that we had deleted it – https://twitter.com/RazorsKiss/status/135522348672614401. Let me be clear. In order for us to delete a comment, approve it, or do whatever else we might do with it, we must have that comment actually submitted to the blog. We cannot do anything with a comment that has not been submitted. I trust I do not need to get out a box of crayons to draw a picture. Rosa proved nothing by taking a screenshot of a comment that had not been submitted. She could have done that at any time and claimed it was deleted, and frankly, that is what I take it that she did. It has become abundantly clear that Rosa Rubicondior makes things up, lies about them to try and protect her reputation, and does so while accusing others of fraudulence. It did not work out too well for her this time. She has undermined her credibility. She cannot be trusted.
But why all of the deception on Rosa’s part? Well, why not? In terms of Rosa’s atheistic understanding of the world, there is nothing to be lost through blatant deceit, so long as she can get away with it. There is nothing in Rosa’s view that makes it morally wrong for her to lie. She does not have much to lose. But what does she have to gain? It may not be so difficult to answer this question. When Rosa looks in the mirror each morning, she fights to suppress the reality of the imago dei. Suppressing the knowledge of her Creator, casting off His Lordship, and pausing to scoff at some passing thought of what one of His followers said to her the other day, Rosa sinks into the sad absurdity of her atheistic worldview, believing that she has done something courageous by indulging her appetite for self-deception. Rosa assures herself that she is nothing more than a godless animal. She proudly recognizes that everything she does, whether good or ill, does not matter at all once she slips back into silt. Everything about Rosa, and everything that Rosa does, counts for nothing in the end. But there is another part of Rosa that will not have it. She must be more than a godless animal. Rosa needs to make something of herself; to make her name known before her short, vain life is over. She sets her hand to proudly proving her self-worth instead of humbly accepting her creaturely value from the gracious hand of God. Like a child she attempts to exalt herself by putting others down and finds it most convenient to rebel against her Creator by attacking those whom He loves. In the midst of this senseless war against those who seek her good Rosa finds that there are times she must lie. Her reputation is placed in harm’s way whenever she is proven wrong, and her quest for self-worth will have none of that. At other times she has to lie to satiate her faulty suspicions that the paranoia brought on by her suppression of the truth has an element of reasonableness to it, hence the avid defense of her crackpot conspiracy theories.
One could speculate for some time about why Rosa thought up a conspiracy theory concerning us and repeatedly lied to give the impression that it carried some weight, but the much more important point that we take away from all of this is that she in fact did so, and that should give her readers and friends serious pause regarding whether or not we can trust anything else she has to say.
Comments
7 responses to “Rosa Rubicondior Unsuccessfully Tries to Save Face”
[…] Previous post: Rosa Rubicondior Unsuccessfully Tries to Save Face […]
This is typical of the bravado that I have constantly encountered from modern Internet atheists. They attack, provoke, rail, attempt to intimidate, use all known logical fallacies (especially ad hominems and insults) and appeal to pride. God forbid (heh!) that a st00pid dumb Xian is actually right about ANYTHING.
Some start out as if they had something to say and wanted meaningful dialogue, but when you begin to get the best of them, they resort to the main atheist rule, “If you cannot refute your enemy’s logic, do your best to destroy your enemy”.
Given that my religion is a private matter between myself and my God, gods, or lack thereof, I suppose I may not qualify as a “modern Internet atheist.” However, I’ve been involved in several discussions here, at some length, and I’d love to see you point out where I resort to the “main atheist rule.”
(Indeed, if it ever escapes moderation, you’ll find me thanking members of this site for their insights and assisting in my understanding on the first Van Til thread of recent existence.)
Your stereotyping does you no credit.
Sorry — that was meant to be in reply to Stormbringer.
“Your stereotyping does you no credit.”
So, you’re calling me a liar. That I have not seen, and experienced, the obscene things that I have described that so many atheist minds produced. Also, you are playing a victim card, because not only did I omit the word “all” from being coupled with “atheists”, YOU were not included in this. Yet, you choose to be offended anyway. You’re a good boy here? That’s nice. Perhaps you can encourage your more obstreperous brethren that their activities are a good part of the reason that atheists are the least-liked and least-trusted group.
Your lashing out at me when you were not involved does you no credit.
I see you are still debasing yourself in the hope of fooling gullible simpletons.
It should be obvious to anyone of above plank intellect, which I appreciate might not include all your unfortunate victims, that you only ‘approved’ my comment after I and several others had campaigned on Twitter to shame you into releasing it. I was alerted to the fact that you would almost certainly ‘moderate’ my comment by others whose comments had similarly been ‘moderated’, so i knew you were already using the tactic of challenging people to answer questions, deleting the answers and then claiming no one could answer them.
And it was of course entirely predictable, given that my comment exposed your hypocrisy in the first place, the pertinent paragraph being:
Would it not be easier simply to admit that you got caught trying the old con artist trick of shifting the burden because you knew your claim could not be substantiated, and then tried to save face by using your powers to try to prevent others from seeing you being exposed as charlatans? Using this tried and tested tactic is normally taken as a sure sign that the claimant knows his/her claim to be false and is trying to cover his/her tracks.
At least you could then come away with a modicum of self-respect and you might even trick people into believing you have some personal integrity and can be taken seriously.
It took you half a year to come up with that? You merely repeated the same arguments you already made. They’ve been addressed in my posts on this topic.
Due to your false charges of dishonesty, etc. like those exhibited above, you will no longer be allowed to comment at Choosing Hats.
Goodbye!