Fighting Against the Slander

“That’s what the internet is for: Slandering others anonymously.” – Banky, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001)

For some time I have been compiling, quietly, a refutation to many of the slanderous statements made by Frank Walton. I have delivered them silently to people who requested them because I have always felt that words only have the power we give them and, if you ignore something long enough, it goes away. After all, the claims being leveled against me are ridiculous, illogical or completely fabricated; I had figured for some time that smart, well-meaning people who might come across them will immediately disregard them. But as I have learned, unfortunately, most people are not as idealistic as I am.

Frank Walton has been one of those irritating fanboys, dedicating most of his free time it would seem, who continuously Google-searches my name and receives Google-alerts about me. Every time my name appears anywhere, there is Frank Walton. Like a hungry stalker—an anonymous, mentally-ill stalker I might add—he tracks me down and posts slander-blogs about me under every mention on every conceivable type of website. It is not that he has anything useful to say, he just has a very loud voice. He’s like one of those people who think they’re a movie critic and can’t shut up while the movie is playing. They never say anything useful or interesting, while they’re yelling the movie can’t be heard so nobody is able to develop their own opinions, and nobody can seem to reason with them.

In reality, Frank thinks he is an internet apologist like J.P. Holding. In fact they both do have stunningly similar qualities. Frank Walton is a pseudonymous name and he often attacks the person rather than the argument. When Frank does attack an argument (whenever there is a harvest moon), it is always proceeded by a personal attack. I imagine that Frank enjoys being compared with Holding, but that is not a compliment. Frank also runs several hate-blogs dedicated to nothing but slander and libel. One such blog, http://thomasverenna.blogspot.com, is directed towards me. Aside from the fact that using my image and name without permission is a TOS violation of Google blogs, he has dedicated this site to my destruction.

So, rather than sending this out to individuals, I have finally decided to publicly answer Frank’s accusations and also return the favor by analyzing Frank’s credibility—whatever little he has left—so the reader may know what it is like to have an insane person stalk you for 2-3 years.

Is Thomas a Liar?

Frank accuses me of lying. This is one of his standard claims. Apparently I lie all the time.

Frank claims I lied about being named Assistant Director of the Jesus Project. No. I never fabricated this title for myself; I was in fact the Assistant Director of the Jesus Project. An email was sent around to the listserv about it announcing my status by the directors. My title has recently changed to Communications Director to better fit my job, which is to liaison between segments of the project and work on maintaining the website.

One thing that Frank likes to speculate on is whether or not I’m a con artist. Apparently, in Frank’s mind, I have been lying to everyone about my credibility; it would seem I was telling everyone I had credentials. This sort of claim is put out there so Frank does not have to face the fact that my written work is respectable (and respected). In his mind, I must be fabricating all sorts of tales because if my work is credible, he loses. However, I have never lied about my lack of credentials and, in the instance of the Jesus Project, I was upfront and honest to everyone, particularly the director of the Jesus Project and the chairs, that I had no formal academic training. The term “autodidact” is clearly visible in every profile I maintain for myself and I have accepted the role of ‘Associate fellow’—a title given by the Project to non-credentialed participants—as a way to express that everything I say and do should (and will be) held to a higher standard of criticism because I lack academic certifications. As I am now an undergraduate student, I am working on correcting the fact that I have no credentials and, although a long ways away, I will one day be certified.

But this claim goes hand in hand with the claim (speculation—conspiracy theory) that Richard Carrier was the scholar who brought me on board the Jesus Project. The irony here is that Richard was completely unaware that I had become involved on the Jesus Project until I phoned him about a paper I was submitting to it; this had been a week or so later. I actually am very well acquainted with most of the Jesus Project members, not just Richard Carrier. But this is all irrelevant; I had been formally invited by the director and chairs to participate. Since I had worked with (and am still working with) these scholars in the past, they were aware of the quality of my research and invited me on. Immediately after I was brought on board, I contacted about 15 others urging them to join the Project—all of them well-respected scholars. Of the 15 individuals I contacted, ten of those scholars came on board the project; the rest could not take on an additional work on top of other obligations they had already committed themselves too.

Frank wants to ignore the truth, it seems. I am not the same person I was three years ago, or even six years ago when I first became involved in activism, and have changed a lot of my positions; something that tends to happen when you spend more time studying, gain life experience, and so on. Frank would have everyone believe that I ’suck at history’ but facts are stubborn things and clearly speak for themselves. That I am still connected with the academic community contradicts the claim that I have lied; it contradicts the claims Frank is making about me. If Frank had been right and I had lied, would not every one of my colleagues and friends be writing of the wisdom of Frank Walton? Would they not have (actually) distanced themselves from me? Lets see what really happens.

Do Scholars “Distance” Themselves From Thomas?

There is a claim made that I often talk of scholars who I know, but when questioned these individuals “distance” themselves from me. Thomas Thompson is listed as an example. But this is not the case. Frank is being dishonest. To start, he has not the personal integrity enough to admit that he created sock-puppet accounts and contacted colleagues and friends of mine in order to cause trouble. In the instance of Thomas L. Thompson, Frank not only contacted him under a sock-puppet email and fake name, but later slipped up and admitted that it was indeed he that had contacted Thomas. In addition, he lied about the question he has asked Thomas in the email and, if you had not seen the original email correspondence, you would not have known that there had been a switch made. See below.

Thomas L. Thompson to me about a Walton blog:

“In quoting my letter (without my consent or knowledge), not only has Frank Walton deleted the name of Tim O’Neill in the address and claimed that the letter was to himself, he also has deleted the question he in fact had asked in his letter to me–not whether your book was to be “peer reviewed” and under consideration for publication in our series, but rather, whether the book had been already accepted for publication. That he has switched his questions is, of course, unknown to the readers of his blog and thoroughly dishonest.

If you consider it useful to cite this letter in responding to Frank Walton’s slander, you have both my permission and best wishes.

I hope the blog-storm that the unethical misuse of my letters has created will not effect your consideration of our series for your monograph and that you will allow me to continue with my review of the book as heretofore planned.” (Used with permission, written Jan. ‘08)

In addition to this, Thomas and I are co-editing a collection of essays together which will be published through an academic series by an academic press. Thomas and I are good friends and remain friends, despite what Frank would have his readers believe. But there are others listed as well. Bob Price wrote the following recently:

Bob Price in response to Walton:

“Tom is a resourceful scholar with interesting views!” (Quoted with permission from a few months ago)

Like with Thomas, Bob and I are also editing a collection of essays together. Richard Carrier has this to say on Frank Walton.

Richard Carrier responding to a Frank Walton sock-puppet:

“You’ve been lied to. Unless you are a sock puppet for the liar (he’s done that before, so I can’t be sure you’re not another instance of him doing that), Tom is a staff member and editor for the project, his scholarship will be peer reviewed, he has not committed plagiarism, and had nothing to do with any claims about Dawkins.”

(Taken from Frank Walton’s blog entitled “Richard Carrier is THE most stupidest atheist (with a PhD.) EVER!” – just a few days ago)

Did Thomas Have Anything to do with the Dawkins Claims?

Frank and others have insisted that I am partially responsible for the incident where Richard Dawkins had been accused of certain unethical allegations. I don’t know how I have been brought into this mess as:

1. The original statement containing certain allegations leveled at Professor Dawkins was never made to me but, instead, confided to Brian Sapient during the 2007 AAI convention. Any witness to that convention will agree that Brian and I were rarely ever near each other as he and Kelly had other responsibilities—like speaking engagements and dinners with other atheist leaders.
2. Brian, over a private phone call, confided in someone else, who he had trusted, about the Dawkins allegations. I do feel Brian was severely in the wrong for confiding with another about something he had originally been asked to keep to himself. I’m certain Brian has owned up to his mistake and has apologized to the appropriate parties for divulging statements and—whether those statements are true or not, to which I have no idea what it may be—as far as I’m aware, he has been forgiven.
3. It had been the original blogger who Brian had confided in who, in defense of Dawkins, ignorantly and arrogantly assumed Brian had been lying to start a rumor and posted up an article about it for the whole world to see. As far as I know, Brian did not tell this blogger the statement he had been confided in to keep to start a rumor but rather to explain what had been happening at the convention. I don’t know for certain, however, as I was not there to hear the conversation.

I will say I do find it interesting that after this blogger had posted his article, it had mysteriously been taken down at the request of the Dawkins people. Whether this speaks to the veracity of the original statement, I cannot say. Whether its true or not does not, in my mind, effect the brilliant work that Dawkins has done in his professional career and it certainly has no hindrance on any of his arguments against the validity of the existence of a God. In the end, I was not there for any of the discussion about the statement in question and it was only after the news had spread that my name was thrown into it. I have never, sans now, made any public claims about the incident one way or another.

Did Thomas Make Claims About Serving in Iraq?

Frank also has a portion of his hate-blog dedicated to my military service. He claims that I made a passing reference to serving in Iraq (even though those words never appeared in the text). I never said I served in Iraq. What I did say is that I lost acquaintances and friends while they were deployed to Iraq, which I have. To name two who died just in 2005; Josh Klinger and Kyle Grimes. Josh was from Easton (Wilson—where I lived for a short time) and Kyle was from Bethlehem, where I grew up. They were both around my age and enlisted around the same time I did. I was never in Iraq though. I also said that I had originally been pro-war and had bought into the lies told by the Bush Administration. And at first, I was also gung ho about joining up and about preparing myself to go overseas. I was enlisted in the USMC prior to 9/11/01 (three months earlier, June ‘01 at MEPS) and originally had been excited about going to war after it happened. I watched the second plane crash into the tower at the WTC and it really troubled me. Of course I wanted payback. I even called my recruiter to get my ship-date moved up. After a short time in, I was discharged for medical reasons. Experience and personal loss took their toll and I was no longer gung-ho after attending a memorial service for a recruiter from a nearby Marine recruiting station who had died in one of the many Helicopter crashes, that happened so frequently in Afghanistan, at the beginning of the war. The point here is that any statement can be taken out of context. The full context of the conversation was that I was young, perhaps 21 at the time I wrote the statement Frank is using (I do not recall when I wrote this exactly). There had been somebody on the message board ridiculing troops and calling them baby killers, ignoring their sacrifices. This hit home with me and I typed exactly what came to mind rather than thinking things through rationally. I was very upset and even without the context of the rest of the posts, anyone reading what Frank has linked to can see that.

Did Thomas Serve in the Armed Forces?

I was enlisted in the USMC and after I was discharged enlisted (for a very, very brief period) in the ANG—although this was not to be long-lived as the same medical reasons once again prevented me from actively serving. My time in was less than two years combined.

Does Thomas Plagiarize?

Frank claims that I have plagiarized. This claim has been around for some time and it has been refuted for the same length of time. Frank is notorious for repeating refuted arguments and slander. The truth is I did not plagiarize. The posts in question (those which Frank Walton links to) had been from Dennis McKinsey’s periodical Biblical Errancy; Dennis, who I also cited in the same post, had given me permission to copy his material into a post. Richard Carrier has also pointed this out to one of Walton’s sock-puppet monikers. Dennis gave me permission to also cite this letter from him (this letter is from 2007):

Dear [Tom]
I saw Frank Walton’s page at atheismsucks.blogspot.com and I think his
method is deplorable, especially considering the fact that you stated
verbatim “Thanks to Dennis McKinsey,” showing you were giving credit to
me when quoting my writings. Obviously Frank does not know of our
friendship or our correspondence for over 7 years. Please know that you
continually have my permission to utilize my writings as you deem
appropriate.

The best to you,

Dennis

When Walton tried to convince others that I had plagiarized, his lies fell through. Richard Carrier wrote to Frank:

“That’s pretty lame if that’s what you were talking about. Emulating such brief turns of phrase wouldn’t warrant disciplinary action in an academic paper. Especially since [Tom] *credits his source*–he outright says “Thanks to Dennis McKinsey.” That’s more than we would normally expect on a forum post, where people do exactly this sort of thing *all the time*.”

(The italics and underlining were added for emphasis. From an email exchange which Richard had sent me after Frank Walton had not posted it up on his blog after posting other comments from Richard out of context)

The fact that I had posted this email from McKinsey publicly two years age—while in the meantime claims about my “plagiarism” of McKinsey continue today—is evidence that Frank Walton does not care how accurate his attacks are; he only wishes that the claims he makes do harm. And can you believe it? He calls himself a Christian.

Is Thomas a Pervert?

A choice slander that Frank uses is that I’m a pervert. He draws on the fact that, in the past, I have written fictional stories which include scenes of intimacy. The fact that I’ve written stories with some sensual basis does not make me a pervert regardless of how many times Frank says it. Since many modern science-fiction authors have their characters coupling in their novels, my short story which Frank cites is hardly abnormal. Compared to other works of fiction out there (like the Bible—the Songs of Solomon for example), my fictional stories were quite appropriate and banal about the subject.

Is Thomas a Fascist?

On his site, he lists several quotes which he claims mean that I am a fascist. In the single(!) (*mis*)quote that Walton lists, he posits that I had some violent end in mind. Yet I am a pacifist and have been a pacifist for years now. The context of the quote was not to cause harm to Frank Walton, but to expose him for the type of individual he is.

Also, none of the other quotes (made not by me, but by Brian Sapient) are mine. They are taken out of context and twisted to fit the whim of Frank’s intentions. Such is the way of things on the internet. In the context that Frank lists them, I would not support those statements, regardless of who made them.

The Character of Frank Walton

We’ve talked enough about me. Now its time to talk about Frank. To start, one should always be cautious about somebody who has to create sock-puppets in order to comment to themselves on their own blog. Frank has not only created aliases which he uses to “beef up” his comments under each blog post, he actively pretends he doesn’t even though he has been caught in the act. (These incidents are documented at the site: http://atheismsucks-sucks.blogspot.com)

Frank also seems content with using sock-puppets to dishonestly contact important people in order to hide his blog from them. He knows that if one google searches “Frank Walton” or “Atheism sucks” that the type of content quality they will find will immediately hurt his credibility. So he creates fictional names and emails as a way to cover it up. (A fact which he will adamantly deny, even though I have given evidence of it in this very article)

Indeed, Franks’ primary support comes from his sock-puppet aliases of which some have their own blogs. On the other hand, well qualified, intelligent, sane people support me and actively come to my defense when one of Frank’s aliases strike. Frank also has to commit fraud—a very actionable offense—in order to hide who he is. I receive emails at times from Frank through his blog, but he uses other peoples’ email addresses and pretends to be them in the email. Take this one, sent to me from Frank’s blogspot account, as an example:

Richard Carrier has sent you a link to a blog:

With the heartache this is causing I’m afraid I can’t be your mentor. You let me down.

Blog: Atheism Sucks!
Post: Richard Carrier is THE most stupidest atheist (with a PhD.) EVER!

Richard Carrier has already submitted a claim to the FBI Cyber Investigations division about this incident. This is a serious violation of the law; In fact, one individual who engaged in the same activities that Frank does has recently been arrested and will go to jail. Frank Walton thinks he can get away with everything; in his mind, it’s justified regardless of whether or not it hurts others or breaks the laws. As a result, he may one day find himself face-to-face with a jail sentence and a large fine. He can call this a hollow claim if he’d like, but he doesn’t know who I’ve contacted, who Richard has contacted, and who others have contacted in order to bring his violations to the attention of the proper authorities.

Frank Walton is a dishonest, disrespectful, arrogant individual who does not care about whether his claims are true or false, whether he ruins somebody else’s life, or whether he commits a federal crime. Frank actively admits he does what he does to harass and harm atheists. Frank believes he is doing the work of God and, as a result, he has made enemies among his fellow Christians. It is unfortunate that some of the atheists in the online community have felt it necessary to accept Frank to get at others; it only damages their credibility. I think that if they devoted some of their attention to investigating Frank, they would find out that he is somebody to be ignored or refuted. Thankfully many have already noticed he is untrustworthy and dishonest.

That I even have to write this is a little unsettling. It means that Frank is being taken seriously by people who should not have fallen for his lies. Now, however, we can put the matter to rest. When it comes down to it, I will continue to be represented by real (not fake) individuals who represent professional society, who are well educated and well respected and Frank will continuously be aided by himself—a person with shallow goals and monstrous intentions.