Whining that PZ tried to debate someone else instead of him

Or, that's basically what shines through in Vox's latest post. He comments on how PZ Myers tried to engage Ken Ham in a debate – presumably only to prove what a lying asshat of a clown Ham is – but was met with more of Ham's habitual lies, not to mention saying "PZ Myers is an atheist" as though it were a deadly strike or something.

Normally, I wouldn't really care what Vox had to say about it, but this paragraph just makes me giggle up:

Needless to say, this behavior has undermined every excuse that Pharyngulans produced last week to cover PZ's very brave retreat^[1]. After all, why is PZ calling radio stations in an attempt to confront Ken Ham on the air when he should instead be publishing peer-reviewed scientific papers on those matters?^[2] Isn't PZ attempting to polish his resume on the basis of Ken Ham's fame?^[3] And isn't Ken Ham's ad hominem argument that PZ Myers is an "atheist" every bit as valid a reason to avoid addressing PZ's criticism as PZ Myer's ad hominem argument that I am a "crackpot" is to avoid mine?^[4]

In one word: Waaaaaaaaaaah!!. But, for the sake of clarification (and my love of contradicting fools):

^[1] Yes, takes quite the amount of courage to say "no" to debating a delusional ignorant fool – not to mention that, of course, any refusal to debate said delusional ignorant fool unequivocally proves he's just chickenshit instead of, say, simply not being interested in the slightest.

^[2] A) He was calling that one station because Ham happened to be on, spouting bullshit, and wouldn't ya know it, PZ was itchin' to set the dishonest fool straight. Cry opportunism if you must. B) I'm fairly certain those "peer-reviewed scientific papers" have already been published. Say, a million times over. Perhaps he just didn't have the luxury of browsing through them all when trying to contact a radio show.

^[3] I'm also fairly certain that PZ's fame and reputation both far eclipse Ken Ham's in just about every possible way.

^[4] Once again, Vox fails pathetically at the grasping of simple concepts and notions. The reason(s) why calling PZ an "atheist" is an ad hominem whereas calling Vox a "crackpot" isn't, is that Ham deliberately used "atheist" as a pejorative, not to mention as a way to "discredit" PZ (if such a thing were possible), whereas Vox ... actually is a crackpot, which inherently signifies he's not worth debating and any attempt at doing so would only amount to a waste of time and energy.

Sorry if you were looking for something a bit more in-depth, but it really is that simple.

Poor Vox. He's itching so badly to have a go with PZ – maybe the professor should just throw him his bottle and have a go, if only to crush his pathetic attempts at "logic" whilst giving the rest of us a great larf at watching Vox's repeated attempts to ignore the evidence stacked so considerably against him. I for one would definitely be interested in watching such a spectacle.

---

Heh – he noticed my criticism! (Or rather, someone else found out and pointed him to it.) Check out my bored little rebuttal – even in criticizing an undereducated 17-year-old, Vox still can't form effective arguments. It's saddening ... almost.