Vox Day objects to a two-year old post

Well this is very odd. Infamous nationalist Vox Day has a new post [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2019/10/mailvox-spotting-quality.html ] dedicated to little old me but oddly it is about this post from two years ago: https://camestrosfelapton.wordpress.com/2017/08/25/spotting-fakery/

“One of the more inept File 770ers – which is saying something – is Camestros Fappletron. His Gamma backside is still burning from the spanking he received here in 2016 after he tried to pose as a Master of Rhetoric and only succeeded in demonstrating that he simply did not understand Aristotle’s distinction between rhetoric and dialectic.
So, it’s more than a little amusing to note that he’s been trying to retroactively rectify the situation for years, as Samuel Collingwood Smith noted.
Earlier today, a leftist left a negative comment on a review I did in 2016 of Vox Day’s “A Throne of Bones”. They ended by linking to a hatepost claiming the positive Amazon reviews were deceptive based on an analysis by a site called Fakepost.com from 2017. Because, of course, the accuracy of a self-appointed analysis site using an unpublished algorithm is beyond question..
I had no idea what he was talking about, because of course I pay absolutely no attention to Camestros or his incessant anklebiting. But apparently, back in 2017, File 770’s Master of Rhetoric decided to prove that many of the 332 reviews of A Throne of Bones, which average 4.5 stars, are fake.”

Sadly Vox’s reading comprehension is still less than stellar or maybe his grasp of logic — oh what the heck, probably both. Vox’s tome was what I was using to examine at Fakespot not vice-versa. My conclusion wasn’t that his reviews were fake but that Fakespot would struggle to spot the difference between fake and sycophantic. Here’s me:

Ouch…but to some extent, we already know that the comment section of Vox’s blog is full of willing volunteers ready to do sycophanting stuff and/or trolling/griefing at Vox’s request. Arguably those are genuine reviews, just that they are hard to distinguish between click-farm fakery. Think of it as a kind of Turing Test, which his right-wing minions repeatedly fail by acting like…well, minions.

Meanwhile back to Vox. He also complains that:

“Sadly for the ever-inept Fappletron, he didn’t bother checking Fakepost to confirm that its initial analysis still held true, as Mr. Smith informs us.”

I’m not sure what he means here. Does he think I should be regularly updating that post from 2017 with the current fake-ness rating of his reviews? That would be just weird. As for checking AT THE TIME whether the ratings changed? Yup, did that and made a point of it:

[A note of caution: the site doesn’t re-analyse automatically so the analysis you get may be out of date. The initial ratings for those two books were different but changed when I clicked the option to re-analyse]

So returning to the point. Don’t know about whoever left a comment on a blog I hadn’t heard of but no, I was not saying Vox Day’s review comments were fake just that at the time Fakespot would have a hard time spotting the difference between his minions’ reviews and fake ones.

Anyway, the good news for any regular at File 770, as I am officially now one of the most inept that makes most of your LESS inept according to Vox and you may style yourselves accordingly.

Meanwhile, the Earth keeps spinning…

25 thoughts on “Vox Day objects to a two-year old post

  1. “Anyway, the good news for any regular at File 770, as I am officially now one of the most inept that makes most of your LESS inept according to Vox and you may style yourselves accordingly.”
    Congratulations! ???

    Liked by 2 people

  2. because of course I pay absolutely no attention to Camestros or his incessant anklebiting.
    “Which is why I’m writing this entire post about something he wrote two years ago.”

    Liked by 7 people

  3. Poor Teddles. His constant need to feel outraged has left him scraping at the bottom of the comprehension barrel.
    (I’m going to be generous here and go with the assumption that his persecution complex is driving him to ever-lower levels of reading comprehension rather than take the direct Occam’s Razor route to the assumption that he’s deliberately being disingenuous.)

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Occam’s Razor is actually still fairly generous to Teddy – it would suggest that we should assume only that he is lying or that he is stupid. The non-Occamist reading would be that he is both.

      Liked by 1 person

    1. Oh, hi!
      I suspect their algorithm got better. As I said at the time, the reviews on Day’s books probably are genuine. He does have a bunch of followers who will happily leave glowing reviews. To Fakespot they would have looked fake because they would be uncritical, positive and many of the reviewers will have only left Amazon reviews that were the same style and on related books. False positives
      Note: that doesn’t mean they are useful reviews because they are literally from partisan sycophants who would applaud Day sitting on the loo…but probably genuinely reviews

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Oh, he’s under the impression that the Nobility disdained Shakespeare and theatre in general? Sort of weird then that he and other playwrights had Noble patrons, amongst them Queen Lizzy and later King Jim! It was Puritans who had theatre banned in 1596 and Puritans who ordered the closure of theatres in 1642. King Charles II re-opened the theatres, though (it was one of the first things he did upon the restoration of the monarchy in 1660).

      Liked by 1 person

  4. He sure told you. Ha! Take that, Cattery Fanaticist!
    Fake news! Contagious Fabulist!
    Watch your SJW followers all fall in line, Consummate Factotum!
    Phobos and thrasos! That’s right. Nichomachaean Ethics, baby. Yeah, I went there, Cognition Fabricate!
    He’s definitely not reading you daily, Capacious Flatterer!

    Liked by 6 people

  5. The important thing is that he voted himself a huge triumph, and his readers, objective to a man, have trebled it by their sustained, spontaneous applause. And you have to admit, that was pretty witty for him: He got your name WRONG! Boy, that sure makes one of the two of you look stupid!

    Liked by 5 people

  6. This is sort of consistent with something I’ve noticed before… Back in 2015, with the Puppy kerfuffle kerfuffling away, Beale took about a month to object to Irene Gallo’s tweet about the Puppies. I hypothesized at the time that this might be a very slow reader, and here’s another datum point suggesting the same thing.

    A month to read a tweet, two years to read a blog post. Thank goodness he doesn’t have a job that requires him to read whole books, eh?

    Liked by 3 people

  7. Enh, after the Flat Earth/NASA is faking dalliance, Beale just seems, um, flat. He’s trying to use rhetoric to lie about a dialectic of your opinions/commentary from an old statistics post. It’s not very impressive.

    But it is rather projectiony. The first time I ever heard of Beale’s existence was on Whatever, because he liked to jump up and down and rant at Scalzi — and call him a gamma, etc., which Scalzi used for a charity drive. And he did so because Beale got trounced in a forum convo at Making Light, during which Scalzi made a joke at Beale’s expense. And Beale couldn’t let it go. So here he is claiming you got trounced in a conversation by him and thus obsess over him, etc., to try to get your moxie back.

    You do talk a lot about Beale and Puppies because they crapped the rug in SFF and it’s good material for Timothy creations. Just continues the oddity that he picked something from two years back, and one that wasn’t even directly about him. I mean, there’re half a dozen other more recent posts more focused on his rants that would have made better fodder for a rhetoric or a dialectic. It seems half-hearted. Freer gives better bombast, I’ll give him that.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Minor pedantry note: it wasn’t at Making Light, it was at Electrolite, which I believe was Patrick’s personal blog before the more general Making Light was formed.

      But yes, Vox has long since demonstrated that he never forgives a personal slight. Especially not when the person who made the slight goes happily on with his life showing no actual indication of caring about Vox more than he’d care about whatever got stuck to his shoe.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. This is not quite right. There was an uneasy truce between the two for quite some time. Beale was even published under “The Big Idea” rubric https://whatever.scalzi.com/2008/04/08/the-big-idea-vox-day/

      This lasted until Scalzi posted this: https://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/10/25/a-fan-letter-to-certain-conservative-politicians/

      Vox went apeshit likely because it was rather inimical to his social conservatism and he had no good reply to it, it also probably didn’t compute.
      https://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/10/john-scalzi-is-rapist.html

      Like

  8. Side note: I’m unconvinced by the assumption that users who only leave positive reviews are likely to be fake. I very rarely leave reviews for anything, because I am lazy. If I do get motivated to leave one, it tends to be on books that I really like, but that are quite niche or obscure, so are likely to benefit from the review.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Mr. Cam, if you were a teacher as the trolls suggest, I would understand your patience. Thanks for maintaining your amusement with the good fight. I don’t have the same stamina, so I support you from afar.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.