Thursday, March 13, 2008

Paul's Sock Puppet Show?



Does ~PM stand for Paul Manata or does it stand for Puppet Master? Examine the evidence and decide for yourself at the junkyard.

14 comments:

Dawn said...

Great sleuthing! Funny. I was just reading this very post over at JC's and was going to suggest that he make this post known to all and popped over here only to find that Ben had already done it!

There is NO question as to who these "other" poster*s* are: Paul Manata IS the Puppet Master! (How divinely sovereign of God for PM to equal PM!) teehee

The NERVE of some people!

And, JC, your wife is right. You do need to apologize to Hormel! ;-)

J.C. Thibodaux said...

Thanks Dawn, it wasn't all me though, Ben actually spotted a few of the striking similarities as well and pointed them out to me, especially with 'Boba Fett.' And Hormel Foods reps, if you're reading, given the events as of late, the comparison between Triablogue posts and your fine line of meat by-products was grossly unfair, I never meant to insult spam...spam, spam spam spam spam spam spam! Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!

Robert said...

Ben thanks for doing your investigative work. I had some suspicions myself (noticing similar verbal patterns and mis-spellings and characteristic style of "humor" and arguments) and your work completely confirms them all. I work with inmates, some of whom are extremely smart, cunning and manipulative, so unfortunately I have to be able to spot shams and set ups and various schemes clever people are trying to develop. It is sad that professing Christians feel the need to have to resort to such antics. Some are no different than what the people of the world practice and no different than what the nonbelieving inmates attempt to do. But then what do you expect when they are desperate to defend a man-made system of theology that negates the love and grace of God towards sinners and leads to all sorts of intellectual sophistries?

Robert

Ben said...

I know for sure that I am not Manata, so there goes one of your suppossed puppets.

I also am good friends with Tom M. and know just as surely that he is not Manata either. There goes another one.

I am sure that many can feel the love that you guys have shown over these last couple of posts. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. lol

kangaroodort said...

Hey Ben,

You wrote:

I know for sure that I am not Manata, so there goes one of your suppossed puppets.

I also am good friends with Tom M. and know just as surely that he is not Manata either. There goes another one.


Admittedly, out of all the possible sock puppets, we thought you might be the least likely. Now that does not mean that you are not one but the evidence is not as strong IMO.

Also, we did not insist that anyone was a sock puppet. We only presented the evidence and allowed any readers to make their own decisions. It was also an opportunity for Paul or any other Triablogue members to fess up and demonstrate some honesty if they, indeed, were posting as sock puppets, or to come out and deny the evidence.

That brings us to the point that you could very easily say "I am not Paul Manata", and yet still be one of the other Triablogue contributors as could Tom H whom you claim to know. Would you be willing to publicly say that you are not any of these people as well?

If you are not a sock puppet for any of these guys then I personally apologize for suggesting that you might be. I could see how that would be very frustrating. Probably at least as frustrating as having sock puppets post on my blog if that has indeed taken place.

God Bless,
Ben

Arminian said...

In light of this post, I should mention that I did post as both Arminian and "Jason A." in one of your threads, but I only posted as "Arminian" once in that thread, and then decided to switch to another posting name (I posted ananymously and signed off as "Jason A.") because I did not want my comments to be disregarded simply because my posting name is "Arminian". (Somebody once implied that my comments were not to be taken too seriously because my posting name showed I was too biased; but that is unreasonable, and I quickly pointed out how the person that made the comment was part of a group that identified itself as Reformed/Calvinistic. Most people debating these issues are solidly in one camp or the other. It should not be a detraction that my posting name identifies my theological position.) Some people were coming off as neutral in that thread and I wanted to address that. So I decided to post with a different label, while indicating that "Jason A." was not my real name by putting the name in quotation marks. I did not do this to give the appearance of more people supporting my position, but again, to keep my normal posting name from being a problem for the discussion. Once I switched to Jason A., I stayed with that name. And I think that was the only thread I posted under more than one name in. I think I might have posted as only "Jason A." in another thread. But I think I have only and ever posted as "Jason A." in those two threads.

So I don't think this fits the sock puppet thing. Do you agree? But I do wish that I had just stuck with "Arminian" the whole time.

Ben said...

Kangaroodort,

I am not Paul Manata or nayone else from Triablogue and no just as certain that neither is Tom M.

I live in Nashville, TN and Tom M lives in Louisville, KY. The reason I know him is because we went to school together.

No need to apologize to me, i just wanted you guys to know that we were not Manata or any other of the Triablogue guys.

Abigail said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Abigail said...

Dear Ben or Kangaroo ( I am sorry I have forgotten you name...)

I am in a situation where I really feel like my place is to do something. I really don't feel it is appropriate to ask this request on a comment to a irrelevant blog but perhpas if I give you my email do you think you could email me?

The request has something to do with the horrible doctrines of Calvanism. I am not a fanatic or bitter slanderer of it - but I do believe it is a much bigger problem then what the passive endorsers like to think.

I am not wise as I would like to be on this topic and without praising men, I do believe God has used bible believing Christians who love His Word, to bless them because they have come under truth and use them for bringing forth the arguements that prove it wrong.

Praise be to God forever, who never leaves or forsakes us - who keeps us always, teaching and guiding us. :) Amen.

Please would you consider writing to me, I would really, really appriciate your help.

Love your sister in Christ,
Abigail.

Abigail said...

Umm.... I forgot to give you my email in all my excitement!

thewayeverlasting@hotmail.com


Thankyou and Shalom!

Dawn said...

Monty Python's SPAM!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE

Piperette said...

hi JC.

I've been frequenting the riff between Triablogue and AP just recently.

In any case, Steve recently posted a response to one of my questions...


"I’ll address your other questions in due time. For now: JC has defined his terms in such a way that, as a matter of principle (as well as practice), for a warning to be genuine, it must be possible in each and every case for the warning to be unavailing. That’s a necessary condition of what makes a warning genuine. So a 100% failure rate is consistent with a divine warning."

Would you say that this is accurate?

I'm not here to cause anything, just wanted some clarification from both sides.

Thanks,
Piperette

J.C. Thibodaux said...

Hey Piperette, thanks for dropping by. I'll do my best to decipher this,

....as a matter of principle (as well as practice), for a warning to be genuine, it must be possible in each and every case for the warning to be unavailing. That’s a necessary condition of what makes a warning genuine.

I never made any sweeping claims about "each and every case" to validate a warning. Some warnings only apply to specific people, such as the warnings to the Levite priests in Leviticus 10:9. I've been arguing against Hays' position that violation of the warnings the New Testament gives the saints against falling away can never occur in any case.

So a 100% failure rate is consistent with a divine warning.

A divine warning cannot 'fail' or be futile by virtue of the fact that if it is violated, its consequences will surely be carried out. I'm thinking Hays is categorizing the warnings in this case strictly as deterrents. He seems to equate "failure rate" or "ineffectiveness" with the possibility of someone not heeding an admonition, but the possibility of a warning being ignored does not automatically mean it has failed as a deterrent, since there is also the possibility that it will be heeded as well. I hope that clears things up a bit, but if you have more questions, you can leave me feedback at my site and we can pick it up via email.

http://oneworldholiday.blogspot.com/ said...

Wonderful post, really great tips and advice. I was interested by your comment,
Flights to Johannesburg
Harare flights,
Flights to Harare,