Why stevebee is wrong

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5801  Postby ElDiablo » Sep 10, 2013 1:19 pm

tolman wrote:
lucek wrote:Just noted something. Steve in his blurb claims
Blume's dad was an author. He wrote The Dark Side of Power, the story of Armand Hammer and Occidental Petroleum, published by Simon & Schuster.
Look up The Dark Side of Power, the story of Armand Hammer and you find that it was written by Carl Blumay, but Steve claims to be Stephen T. Blume (a possiblility. many people change the spelling of their names). So A: Steve's last name is different then his father, B: one of then misspelled their name for their book credit, C; the claim is wrong they are related (possibly counts as fraud and given the text about dear daddy blume libel too). Does bring up the question if the name Stephen T. Blume is just assumed however.


Out of the tiny number of people likely to ever buy the book, are any actually likely to check his genealogy, or to care much about it?


What's amusing is that a layer of obfuscation often appears with Blume's history yet he's desperately wanting to be recognized as the greatest scientific thinker of all time.

Example of obfuscation (paraphrase), "Enough classes to have earned a Masters in biological sciences"
Example of wanting to be recognized as the greatest scientific thinker, His book "Evo-illusion tells a fascinating story of biology, astronomy, physics, particle physics, and other sciences."
He's Einstein, Darwin, Hawking, Dawkins, all rolled into one.
God is silly putty.
User avatar
ElDiablo
 
Posts: 3128

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5802  Postby tolman » Sep 10, 2013 2:06 pm

Shrunk wrote:Steve has a very odd understanding of how the publishing business works, judging by his comment on the Sensuous Curmudgeon:

Regarding the big deal made out of my vanity publishing, the only way to get a first book published is if vanity publishers are used; unless the writer is famous, which I am not, fortunately. When you people who rag on vanity publishing write a book and get it published by Simon and Schuster, then make a big deal. Otherwise you might want to shut it on that one.


That's right, Steve. Every single published author, other than the ones who are already famous, has to first go thru the vanity press before getting his book published by a real publisher. Every single one. :lol:

Was it proper vanity publishing (ie Steve paying serious money up-front to get N books printed) or a print-on-demand service?
I wouldn't think of the latter as being vanity publishing (it has lots of legitimate uses), but Steve seems happy to describe what he has done as being VP.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5803  Postby Shrunk » Sep 10, 2013 2:25 pm

tolman wrote: Was it proper vanity publishing (ie Steve paying serious money up-front to get N books printed) or a print-on-demand service?
I wouldn't think of the latter as being vanity publishing (it has lots of legitimate uses), but Steve seems happy to describe what he has done as being VP.


According to the Wikipdedia page of Xlbris, the service that Steve used, its status as a vanity press is a bit ambiguous. I actually now remember reading the Harper's article on Xlibirs that is mentioned in Wiki.

As the Curmudgeon notes, Steve is in good company as a self-published genius. :rofl:
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 58
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5804  Postby tolman » Sep 10, 2013 2:54 pm

I suppose paying oneself for a press release could elicit a negative knee-jerk response, though I guess it's the content of publicity that matters much more than who pays for it - people doing in-house PR for publishers don't work for nothing.

I design/make/sell some products on a small scale, which I have to publicise myself, but if I'd chosen to pay someone else to do that, that's not necessarily 'worse', and either way, I think I could only be justifiably criticised if what I wrote (or approved of others saying) was misleading, dumb, self-absorbed, or seriously unfair to some competing product, or my product was a pile of shite.

Having said that, if we think of actual science as the competing product to Steve's...
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5805  Postby Shrunk » Sep 10, 2013 3:45 pm

tolman wrote:Having said that, if we think of actual science as the competing product to Steve's...


That's the real point here. It's not unheard of for self-published books to become bestsellers thru dogged marketing by the author, and not a bit of luck (Fifty Shades of Grey being one prominent example). But when it happens it's almost always with a work of fiction. For scientific writing of the sort Steve aspires to, one usually first establishes one credentials in the field in question thru academic work and scholarly publications. Of course, Steve dismisses the latter as mere "magazines".
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 58
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5806  Postby stevebee92653 » Sep 10, 2013 5:14 pm

ElDiablo said:
What's amusing is that a layer of obfuscation often appears with Blume's history yet he's desperately wanting to be recognized as the greatest scientific thinker of all time.


I AM the greatest scientific thinker of all time. You ratskeppers just don't realize it. Here you have such a great chance to discuss good stuff with the GSTOAT, and you have blown your chance. You just don't realize it. This is what happens with opportunities missed.... :(
User avatar
stevebee92653
Banned Troll
 
Name: Steve
Posts: 1324

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5807  Postby Shrunk » Sep 10, 2013 5:33 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:I AM the greatest scientific thinker of all time. You ratskeppers just don't realize it. Here you have such a great chance to discuss good stuff with the GSTOAT, and you have blown your chance. You just don't realize it. This is what happens with opportunities missed.... :(


We've been discussing stuff with you for almost 300 pages now. You mean there's more that you haven't told us yet?

:popcorn:
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 58
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5808  Postby tolman » Sep 10, 2013 5:39 pm

Shrunk wrote:We've been discussing stuff with you for almost 300 pages now. You mean there's more that you haven't told us yet?

Well, we've been talking about stuff while 'different kinds of zero probability' Steve makes the occasional dumb, ignorant or trolling comment and then either ignores posts or posters or just runs away altogether when he knows he can't say anything without himself look even worse than he already does.

The only remaining question seems to be precisely what kind of pathology lies behind the bullshit.

But then, I suppose that was pretty much the only question we started with.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5809  Postby ElDiablo » Sep 10, 2013 8:57 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:
ElDiablo said:
What's amusing is that a layer of obfuscation often appears with Blume's history yet he's desperately wanting to be recognized as the greatest scientific thinker of all time.


I AM the greatest scientific thinker of all time. You ratskeppers just don't realize it.


Doesn't it suck being an unrecognized genius?
Last edited by ElDiablo on Sep 11, 2013 1:43 am, edited 2 times in total.
God is silly putty.
User avatar
ElDiablo
 
Posts: 3128

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5810  Postby ADParker » Sep 10, 2013 10:45 pm

Shrunk wrote:Steve has a very odd understanding of how the publishing business works, judging by his comment on the Sensuous Curmudgeon:

Regarding the big deal made out of my vanity publishing, the only way to get a first book published is if vanity publishers are used; unless the writer is famous, which I am not, fortunately. When you people who rag on vanity publishing write a book and get it published by Simon and Schuster, then make a big deal. Otherwise you might want to shut it on that one.


That's right, Steve. Every single published author, other than the ones who are already famous, has to first go thru the vanity press before getting his book published by a real publisher. Every single one. :lol:

Except for his father apparently, who he says wrote one book that was not a vanity publication. :think:
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
RS Donator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 5643
Age: 51
Male

Country: New Zealand
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5811  Postby CADman2300 » Sep 12, 2013 6:34 pm

A funny thing about Steve's book is how it so far only has one costumer review. http://www.amazon.com/Evo-illusion-Why- ... nskepti-20
Excellent writing, that provides you with what you need, to make up your own mind about the theory of evolution. Much more readable than many of the Intelligent design books, that are already on the market. A personal story by a person who went all the way from believing in evolution as a fact, to doubting it, and to finally rejecting it. A good read, also for the hard core Darwinist who is interested in learning about the facts that turn people away from evolution.

:think: Funny how it reads more like a sales pitch than an actual review. But if the person who wrote this is just a sock-puppet, we should expect as much.

One person, likely not connected to Steve in any way, had this to say in response to the above. http://www.amazon.com/review/R3IGPE7RZ2 ... hisHelpful
I would take this review with a grain of salt. the author of this book is notorious for creating fake people to prop up his cases as such this person is most likely Steve.

I would also like to point out as I'm writing this http://www.novelrank.com/asin/1483661660 tells me that the last book sold is unknown. So he has a 5/5 costumer review on Amazon before he has a costumer on Amazon.

Ditto.
User avatar
CADman2300
 
Posts: 485

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5812  Postby Rumraket » Sep 12, 2013 6:43 pm

:picard:

:rofl:
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13242
Age: 42

Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5813  Postby tolman » Sep 12, 2013 7:16 pm

And a 'reviewer' who, despite having supposedly read so many other ID/creationist books, was so moved by this one that they chose to make it the subject of their first ever review of any book.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5814  Postby lucek » Sep 12, 2013 7:21 pm

CADman2300 wrote:A funny thing about Steve's book is how it so far only has one costumer review. http://www.amazon.com/Evo-illusion-Why- ... nskepti-20
Excellent writing, that provides you with what you need, to make up your own mind about the theory of evolution. Much more readable than many of the Intelligent design books, that are already on the market. A personal story by a person who went all the way from believing in evolution as a fact, to doubting it, and to finally rejecting it. A good read, also for the hard core Darwinist who is interested in learning about the facts that turn people away from evolution.

:think: Funny how it reads more like a sales pitch than an actual review. But if the person who wrote this is just a sock-puppet, we should expect as much.

One person, likely not connected to Steve in any way, had this to say in response to the above. http://www.amazon.com/review/R3IGPE7RZ2 ... nskepti-20
I would take this review with a grain of salt. the author of this book is notorious for creating fake people to prop up his cases as such this person is most likely Steve.

I would also like to point out as I'm writing this http://www.novelrank.com/asin/1483661660 tells me that the last book sold is unknown. So he has a 5/5 costumer review on Amazon before he has a costumer on Amazon.

Ditto.

Hello.
Next time a creationist says, "Were you there to watch the big bang", say "Yes we are".
"Nutrition is a balancing act during the day, not a one-shot deal from a single meal or food.":Sciwoman
User avatar
lucek
 
Posts: 3641

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5815  Postby Scot Dutchy » Sep 13, 2013 2:00 pm

Steve is doing what every struggling author does.

You cant trust any unknown reviewer.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 73
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5816  Postby tolman » Sep 13, 2013 2:31 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:Steve is doing what every struggling author does.

Surely not every one?

Scot Dutchy wrote:You cant trust any unknown reviewer.

Well, you can make some estimate of their reliability from how and what they write, as well as their history of other reviews.

You can't much trust a known reviewer, unless there is an established good correlation between their opinions and your own.

But certainly:
A brand-new reviewer
Giving 5 stars and a completely uncritical review
To a book which (if the reviewer exixts) they seem likely to have got an advance copy of

Even if one had no prior opinion of the author, that seems to hit all the buttons for 'place zero faith in this review'.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5817  Postby Scot Dutchy » Sep 13, 2013 2:36 pm

tolman

I have heard that plenty of times. Even asking friends to write reviews is not unknown.

Reviewing is considered in some quarters to be a sport.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 73
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5818  Postby tolman » Sep 13, 2013 3:05 pm

Oh sure, there are a lot of fake reviews around (seemingly including many commercial ones from dodgy PR companies).

But then there are also reviews from people with nothing better to do, and reviews from people with one or other axe to grind, and reviews from people who can't seem to string a sentence together or write a paragraph that is internally consistent.

Personally I put limited trust in reviews in general, and (especially regarding creative works) largely judge by other means.

I do use reviews for functional items like MP3 players, but not *too* much on the star rating but what people are saying, and seeing if recurring real problems (other than operator error) seem to emerge in the 1/2-star reviews.

For creative stuff, if there are internal comparisons with other work by the same source, that can be handy because it's relatively immune to hype - if most of the people making comparisons rate an album I like as the best or worst an artist/group has produced, that can give me a fair guide to whether I might want to buy any other ones.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5819  Postby lucek » Sep 23, 2013 6:32 pm

OK so update on the 5/5 review. The person who made it claims that they are in fact real and part of a Denmark family band that plays at churches. I sent an Email off to the band to find the truth of this and if the case may be warn them that their name has been stolen but given the nature of the band I wouldn't be surprised to find out that this is legit person.
Next time a creationist says, "Were you there to watch the big bang", say "Yes we are".
"Nutrition is a balancing act during the day, not a one-shot deal from a single meal or food.":Sciwoman
User avatar
lucek
 
Posts: 3641

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5820  Postby tolman » Sep 23, 2013 6:52 pm

Could easily have been a 'fan' given an early copy.

Not particularly relevant anyway, since even if you knew they existed, someone who has only posted one review would be pretty suspect even for a non-contentious product where the producer had some record for producing quality stuff.
When it comes to an area like Creationism and ID which is populated with ignoramuses, delusionals and liars, much more caution regarding reviews would be in order.
I wouldn't put it past some people to have sock-puppet negative strawman reviews which some other reviewer can then tear apart to show how horrible those evils scientists are.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest

cron