Friday, July 01, 2005

There May Only Be One Biblioblogger

I've been trying to figure out if I should post this or not, and decided to. Since it involves several bibliobloggers and some random guy's insulting of them, I decided to. Basically, if this guy contacts you via email or comments on your blog, it might be best if you just avoid him. But, here's the story.


So I got a comment on an old post of mine ( The post said the following:

Ken Penner = Peter Kirby

His name, though, was a link to Mark Goodacre's blog. The comments involved a discussion between Mark and a Peter Kirby. At then end an anonymous poster (I'm assuming the same one that is bothering me) said that the Peter Kirby shown there was not real, but a pseudonym

So now I see who this fellow is talking about. Now, I've never met Peter (though I think I might have had a short email exchange with him at some point). But I have met Ken, so I googled for his email and asked for more information. After all, who wouldn't be curious? The following is my email. Comments are in brackets.


I found your comment on one of my posts
about Ken Penner == Peter Kirby interesting. I've met Ken before, but
not Peter (though that isn't a surprise[meaning, there are billions of people on the earth, so I'm not surprised there is this guy I haven't met]). I looked at the discussion
on Goodacre's blog where someone (I'm assuming you) said the posting
by Peter Kirby was pseudonymous. I thought I had seen a picture of
someone claiming to be a Peter Kirby once, and it didn't look anything
like what was on Mark's blog [this guy was an older looking computer science guy, if I remember right].

I'm very curious how you came to that conclusion. Could you shed some
light on that?

[At this point I am proceeding to enter into light-hearted conversation. After all, why would I feel the need to show him what I looked like?]

You can find a picture of me here:

And I only go by three names, Eric Sowell and "The Coding Humanist" in
general online, and Mallioch in online gaming. But I never talk to
myself, promise :)


So what am I expecting at this point? Well, I'm expecting a little more explanation. After all, what I've seen so far makes no link between Ken and Peter. I don't get at all what I'm expecting. The following is his response:


Your crap web site Christonomy [a GREAT opener for civil conversation] tells me nothing Eric - four pretty boys all too good to be true [So now we don't have one made up Peter Kirby, but 3 more!]. Prove to me that you all attend the First Baptist Church of Parker [I'm not sure why I should feel that I need to at this point] and that you graduated where you say you did[still, don't see why I should waste my time. After all, I'm already turned off from that first annoying sentence]. I can't see a Baptist Church holding your views [actually, the church does not, though some are sympathetic and all are tolerant. My church is odd. It doesn't immediately take a condescending approach to everyone it disagrees with. Strange church...] and I have to assume [not a good idea] that your web site is yet another Catholic-inspired dummy[sorry, not Catholic. Never have been. Have too many disagreements. I'm assuming that he's pointing to an article by Ragan...I mean, my pseudonym...that says that we don't agree with the doctrine of imputation.]. I can smell them a mile off [check your nose].

Why isn't it a surprise to you that you haven't met wonder boy Peter Kirby, the student from Fullerton College who apparently has an old head on young shoulders? The answer is that the young Peter Kirby is a myth - I wrote that the photograph was a spoof [note the comment on Mark's blog].

So here is the first clue that he is not the four-eyed unsuspecting person
on the photograph which you saw on Mark Goodacre's Weblog - a photograph
which Mark Goodacre at first denied existed on his Weblog [whatever...]- yes he lied [whatever...]- pass that back to him [okay].

"I never talk to myself, promise" Indeed! - Don't make me laugh. [More witty retort]


So at this point I'm a little upset. After all, I'm used to dealing with people who aren't rude. So my response was pretty simple. Here it is:


Now you're just being rude and wasting my time.


So now I'm hoping that this guy will just leave me alone. No, he is persistent. He adds another comment to that same post. It says the following:


The equation is expanded:
Ken Penner = Peter Kirby = Jeffrey Gibson = The Coding Humanist (the Greek geek and the tech geek)


Now I'm just thinking that this guy is really big into conspiracy theories or something. Now we have Ken, Peter, Jeffrey Gibson, and myself, all as one person. Oh, and add the other three pretty boys on the Christonomy website and we've got 7 people wrapped all into one. So, guys, I guess we need to have a wrestling match to see who gets to stay real.

So, I'm going to go ahead and alert the guys about this. I've got all your emails except for you, Jeffrey. If anybody has it, let me know. You should know how to get ahold of me.

Here are my concluding thoughts. First of all, I'm not planning on having any discussion with this fellow until I'm convinced he can involve himself in civil conversation. I wouldn't really recommend responding to him if he pesters you as well.

Second, this I don't get at all. The inconsistency here AMAZES me. Here is some who doesn't like me because he's an uber-zealous Protestant who apparently can't disagree with a Reformer's theology in good conscience because of his great devotion to theology and to God. Yet he can only speak to someone who disagrees in a condescending, insulting manner. This inconsistency and hypocrisy is BLINDINGLY obvious to me. Please, learn to engage in normal human conversation. If you're worried about the state of my soul, I would prefer that you would
at least pretend to act that way.

And I hope it doesn't come as too much of a shock to you guys that I don't exist ;)