As some of you know, we've been trying to get "Rational Response Squad" member, Rook Hawkins (whose real name is Tom Verenna), to debate JP Holding on the "Christ myth" controversy. However, the excuse cowardly Hawkins has for not debating JP Holding fairly in an independent forum (while being moderated by an independent moderator I might add) is thus and so:
Because [JP Holding] is an internet fraud, Laz. All he does is research and plagerize online sites and repost them on his tektoonics site (pun intended - after all he does it, right?). I don't have time for people who think they can debate me when their knowledge is stolen and claimed as their own. He's got the IQ of a pea-wit but he knows that if he can keep the debate on the internet in writing he has a chance to continue to look intelligent. I would rather catch him on things he knows nothing about and prove it on the air. It's how I work. I expose frauds.
Posted by Rook on Tuesday, November 07, 2006 at 3:57 PM
So do I, Rooky! In fact, you're the subject of my expose! We will show how you're projecting here, too.
Little does Rooky know: people can actually look up whether someone has plagiarized someone else (or not) and therefore disqualify him. But no, even with that in mind, Rooky will still not debate Holding.
To avoid a fair debate with Holding, Rooky must call his "better researcher than he is" opponent a "plagiarizer. But I decided to do some research on Hawkins and I found out he "wrote" this (< - Rook has just deleted this article! Apparently, he's hiding the evidence.) in an atheist forum. Take the time to read it if you will. Pretty impressive, isn't it?
But unfortunately I just caught Hawkins trying to get away with something. And he actually thought he wouldn't get caught. Well, Hawkins, you just got made.
Here's the smoking gun on Rook Hawkins
Again, look at the article by Hawkins. Find the part entitled "The Talmud Mentions Jesus." Everything he says there came from Dennis McKinsey here! To his credit, Hawkins said "Thanks to Dennis McKinsey" but he never mentioned that it was a word-for-word copy of his article! Compare Hawkins' article to McKinsey's. Guess what, both criticisms begin with
"The first comment worthy of note is found in Sanhedrin 43a of the Talmud, which states..."
And they both end with
"The answer is no."
This isn't just coincidence, dear readers. Not once did Rook Hawkins mention that it was a word-for-word copy of McKinsey's article. In fact, everybody in the forum thought he wrote it. He made it look like he wrote it originally, which he hasn't. Thanking McKinsey isn't enough to reference him. Greg Bahnsen may thank Cornelius Van Til for his philosophical view, but he hasn't copied any of his essays to make it look like he orginally wrote them!
But let's just say for argument's sake that Rook Hawkins did "properly" reference McKinsey. Now what? Well, you guys won't believe this. Hawkins mixed his own writings with McKinsey's! That by definition is plagiarism! Right after the Talmud part, Hawkins immediately goes to Pliny where he makes this observation:
Rook Hawkins: "It proves nothing in regard to the existence of Jesus, but only affirms the existence of Christians." (source)
Hawkins got that from McKinsey. Here's proof. This is what McKinsey says:
Dennis McKinsey: "the passage proves nothing in regard to the existence of Jesus. It only affirms the existence of Christians." (source)
Here, let's bold the similarities:
- Rook Hawkins: "It proves nothing in regard to the existence of Jesus, but only affirms the existence of Christians."
- Dennis McKinsey: "the passage proves nothing in regard to the existence of Jesus. It only affirms the existence of Christians."
You'd have to be a moron to think that Hawkins didn't use McKinsey like Milli Vanilli didn't use Charles Shaw, John Davis, and Brad Howell.
Still not convinced? Okay, check out more comparisons:
- Rook Hawkins: "If the passage is referring to Christians, then it is also saying Christians sold the flesh of their sacrificial victims." (source)
- Dennis McKinsey: "if this passage is referring to Christians, then it is also saying that Christians sold the flesh of their sacrificial victims." (source)
The only thing that Hawkins was missing was the word "that."
Here's another:
- Rook Hawkins: "Roman laws accorded religious liberty to all. Before Constantine there was not a single law opposed to freedom of thought." (source)
- Dennis McKinsey: "Roman laws accorded religious liberty to all. Before Constantine there was not a single law opposed to freedom of thought." (source)
Looks like Hawkins copied everything there.
Well, I guess we can see who the real plagiarist is.
We can show more examples of copying if you guys want but you get the drift. I got one word for you, Rook Hawkins:
Bbbbbbbuuuuuuusssssttttttteeeeeedddddd!!!!!!!
You actually thought we didn't know how much of a fake you are?! You actually think we don't know what little research you've done?! You actually thought you can get away by copying Dennis McKinsey?! You actually think that cheating is good for you?! You're a phony, Rook! You are everything you claim JP Holding is
"an internet fraud... All Rook Hawkins does is research and plagerize online sites and repost them on his irRational Responder site (pun intended - after all he does it, right?). We don't have time for people who think they can debate good thinking Christians when your knowledge is stolen and claimed as your own, Rooky. You got the IQ of a pea-wit and yet you try to look intelligent. We love catching you and your fraudulent thinking in public. It's how we work. We expose frauds."
See, we told you Rooky was projecting.
Ahem... on a lighter note:
Why not read JP Holding's debate with John Powell where they debate whether Jesus existed or not? At least Powell had the guts to debate Holding on the topic that Rooky refuses to debate Holding fairly on. And read Holding's responses in this debate. Did he plagiarize anything? Of course he didn't.
It is apparent that Holding did his research. I'm afraid I can't say the same for Rook Hawkins. If the atheist group, Rational Responders, want to be rational why do they have irrational and dishonest frauds like Hawkins in their group? I can't wait to read their excuses for defending Hawkins's actions! But by doing that, it shows that they are truly irrational.
===========================
***Update***
In light of Rook Hawkins's plagiarism he suggested that his critics email Dennis McKinsey who seemingly defends Hawkins, but does he? Guess what, I personally emailed McKinsey and it's quite apparent that he has been cautious of Rook Hawkins and his plagiarism.
14 comments:
What an idiot! Rooky Hawkins has grown to such a low point in his career that if an opponent debates him, it would make the opponent look like the fool! Who in their right mind would have the integrity and dignity to debate such a fraud like Hawkins?
Hawkins really does go from bad to worse. Holding certainly isn't a plagiariser. He does his research properly and very thoroughly, and duly credits his sources. When he quotes from them, he states very clearly that he's quoting, with due credits and citations.
As for John Powell, Powell certainly did have the courage to debate Holding on TWeb, and Holding has made it clear that he respects him as an intelligent, gentlemanly debater. Hawkins could learn from his example.
Really, Hawkins is just looking very desperate with these baseless accusations and excuses.
So all Rooky's done is read McKinsey, copy him, and claim that he's done ALL the research on the historical Jesus? Yup, Rook's a retard.
Well I don't think we should expect much more from these guys. They just want to bill themselves as intllectual titans when really from what I have heard they are just a bunch 20 something year old college students with a smattering of philosophical "arguments" against God's existance. Really at root these guys are just plain angry at God. They use their "arguments" to give an air of being too intellectual for Christianity. It's a bummer because there really wouldn't be a problem if Hawkin just cited his sources, its not that hard...but when you want to bill yourself as some sort of "expert" it is tempting to steal other people's superior work. Espescially if your an atheist and have no moral absolutes stating stealing (in this cas intellectual property) is wrong.
I like how Rook, the Rational Responder's self-proclaimed 'expert' (As spelled in: NO DEGREES), thinks he could debate all these people,
But then has to plagerize!
Hahahaha!
BEing the expert 'historian' of the RR, what does that tell you about their little group?
I wonder if their little teenage myspace atheist fans know about this blog?
I like Rook the "expert" he wrote his paper like a C average Jr. High kid.
I wonder if their little teenage myspace atheist fans know about this blog?
I hope they do. I'd like to get more teens and young adults to visit this site. They need to know about the frauds and liars that are trying to brainwash them.
Hi Bob,
Good point. I really don't know if this would be the end of the Rational Responders. I think it may be. Many atheists have ostracized them already. And I don't know too many atheists or atheist groups who recommend them. The thing of it is though, RR knows how propaganda works. The bigger the lie they yell the more followers they may get. But look at Reginald Finley. He's pretty much over with as far as I'm concerned. And look how much yelling (and crying) he's done.
Many reputable Christians aren't doing interviews in RR's radio show. Probably because they know how full of it they are. But look at the Christians they have had: banana-peeling Ray Comfort and Steve Gregg. LOL! Well, whupdeedoo! I like Gregg though. Comfort, well, he's not someone I'd site as an example of Christian apologetics. But this is the best they've done! Now, when they have a cool cat like JP Holding challenging them, they run! What can you do, huh?
It's the end of Hawkins though. There's no way he can get away with this. And no serious minded person can overlook his actions here either. If he ever gets into a debate or discussion about the historicity of the Bible his opponent need only reference this blog to expose his shabby research.
Frank
You guys better take a screenshot of Rook Hawkins' forum post before he changes or deletes it. That way, he can say that he didn't plagiarize anybody.
Actually got into a kind of internet debate with Hawkins about a year ago over at the atheist network.
I started out pretty casually, kind of a "Columbo" approach and then pointed out some contradictions between his own sources on this very issue.
When I caught him cold, he went into a tirade about how he wished he could shove my posts down my throat and how he was trained in the military, etc.
Then they banned me a deleted most of my comments, although looks like some are still up over there.
His credibility is zip.I
Typical for the (ir)rational response squad. Even some atheists on myspace can't stand them.
Mr. Walton, this is from Dennis in an e-mail correspondence to me:
-----Original Message-----
From: klomckin@ameritech.net
To: rookhawkins@aol.com
Sent: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 12:57 PM
Subject: To Rook
Dear Rook
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
PS. Anyone concerned with this matter can contact me at:
klomckin@ameritech.net
------------------------
Please remove ALL comments concerning me plagerizing Dennis McKinsey, as I will be forced to get a lawyer involved. This is slander now, and a very cut and dry case. I will be posting these letter around the net.
I don't care if you want to throw stones, or name call me, because everyone without a case does this, but the second you impunge my reputation in this manner, I take it very seriously.
Thank you,
Rook Hawkins
Sorry, Rook, I won't remove my post on you or any other. Bring the lawyers if you want. Thanking someone still doesn't mean you didn't copy them, or reference them, or quoted them, get it? Even books have "acknowledgment" sections where authors thank their mentors but note that their work is their own and not their mentors. Furthermore, eveybody in that forum thought the post was originally written by you. So can you really blame me for calling you a plagiarist?
Look, if McKinsey is covering your plagiarist back by saying he doesn't mind you copying him verbatim and taking credit for it, I'll grant that. But don't tell me you did your homework on the subject, because you didn't. I just wished you would have told everybody that in the first place. But the truth is, Rook, you wanted everybody to think that you were actually intelligent enough to look up all the data to come up with a conclusion of your own. When all it was was just you copying someone else. What more do you want, Rook? Honestly, dude! Now go apologize to JP Holding for slanderously calling him a plagiarist without proof. As we've seen he's not the one with that problem. I will encourage him to sue you by the way :o)
Here's what Rook Hawkins had to say*:
Frank Walton has been warned
by Rook Hawkins
Frank Walton AKA Atheismsucks has been roaming the internet in an attempt to discredit me and slander my name. Normally he is small peanuts, but this has gone on long enough. He states in his blog that I have plagiarized Dennis McKinsey and in doing so has committed a grave error. On top of this, he has spread this rumor around on Myspace and blogs of friends of the RRS for some time now. But this is about to end one way or another.
The fact is, Dennis McKinsey is a good friend of mine, who has supported me and I him over the past several years in our endeavors. When Dennis was looking to get on Internet Radio, I was more then willing to help him get on Freethoughtmedia.com. He even guest stared on the Rational Response Squad where he vocalized his friendship with me, and our history. This show is available for free download on my profile in the playlist box. It is show number 2. In the event that it has been bumped for newer content, here is a link to listen: http://www.rationalresponders.com/media/RRS-Show2-48k.mp3
Dennis also saw Frank's lies concerning my compilation of works (which by the way is what I called it - I never once stated that it was all my work, or that I had come up with the information - merely that I had compiled it) and he sent me an e-mail regarding Frank's claim that I plagiarize:
-----Original Message-----
From:
klomckin@ameritech.net
To:
rookhawkins@aol.com
Sent: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 12:57 PM
Subject: To Rook
Dear Rook
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
PS. Anyone concerned with this matter can contact me at:
klomckin@ameritech.net
--------------------------------------------------
I've asked Frank on his blog (I posted this letter on his blog and hope he doesn't remove it) to remove all mentions of this deceitful claim that I plagiarize, and let him know if he persists in spreading this slander, I will be forced to take legal action against him.
I am not one to remove opinionated comments from my blog. A quick check on it will show numerous occasions where somebody attacks my character or mentality. Such words as "idiot" "strupid and "moron" are but a few of the epithets thrown in my direction. I generally take these with a grain of salt as these are the tactics of a person who has no other case against me then throwing ad hominems around.
But Frank doesn't seem to know when to draw the line. It's one thing to state an opinion concerning somebody elses character, as mentioned above - but to attack their credibility, especially when the evidence shows the contrary, is quite dishonest and uncalled for. This just goes to show that to people like Frank Walton, facts are just tools to be manipulated. This is the level of dishonesty a theist will go to validate their own opinions and beliefs.
So for those out there who have been tormented by this case brought against me, let this be a reminder that this is what the RRS is fighting for - to free minds and rid the world or irrational people like Frank Walton who would better serve their causes by lying and cheating their way through life at the expense of others to gain attention for themselves.
Stay Rational,
Rook Hawkins
My response:
Rook Hawkins said,
"Frank Walton AKA Atheismsucks has been roaming the internet in an attempt to discredit me and slander my name. "
Actually, you only have yourself to blame for that, Rookie.
Rook Hawkins said,
"Normally he is small peanuts, but this has gone on long enough. He states in his blog that I have plagiarized Dennis McKinsey and in doing so has committed a grave error. On top of this, he has spread this rumor around on Myspace and blogs of friends of the RRS for some time now. But this is about to end one way or another."
Sorry, dude, but you did indeed plagiarize McKinsey. Why couldn't you have left the link where the alleged plagiarism happened? Let the people decide. At least, I left a link. Here it is.
Rook Hawkins said,
"The fact is, Dennis McKinsey is a good friend of mine, who has supported me and I him over the past several years in our endeavors. When Dennis was looking to get on Internet Radio, I was more then willing to help him get on Freethoughtmedia.com. He even guest stared on the Rational Response Squad where he vocalized his friendship with me, and our history. This show is available for free download on my profile in the playlist box. It is show number 2. In the event that it has been bumped for newer content, here is a link to listen: http://www.rationalresponders.com/media/RRS-Show2-48k.mp3"
*SHRUGS* I don't care if he's your friend. Does that give you the write to copy him verbatim?
Rook Hawkins said,
"Dennis also saw Frank's lies concerning my compilation of works (which by the way is what I called it - I never once stated that it was all my work, or that I had come up with the information - merely that I had compiled it)..."
You never said it was a "compilation of works" but a combination. Again, look it up. You never used that word. Furthermore, in your own blog you didn't say it was a combination or a compilation of works you collected. But Rook does something that still constitutes as plagiarism: he inserted his own writings with the writings of other authors! By doing that you can't tell who is writing what. And that's exactly what happened in that forum and blog. Everybody there thought Rook wrote the whole thing himself.
Rook Hawkins said,
"...and he sent me an e-mail regarding Frank's claim that I plagiarize:
-----Original Message-----
From:
klomckin@ameritech.net
To:
rookhawkins@aol.com
Sent: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 12:57 PM
Subject: To Rook
Dear Rook
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."
LOL! Obviously, Rook Hawkins coached McKinsey through this. But anyway, any MLA handbook will tell you that properly sourcing someone you must cite the source. Saying "thank you" doesn't do it. You must give a link or an article or book info., etc. Hawkins did none of this. Instead he mixed his own writings with McKinsey's. McKinsey knows that Hawkins was wrong by not properly sourcing him and making his own works look like his; however, to save Hawkins' so-called reputation he says that saying "thank you" to someone is the proper way to cite someone. It ain't. Why don't all the college students try this: the next time you write a "historical" paper on Jesus, copy and paste everything McKinsey has to say about the topic and write "Thanks to Dennis McKinsey" at the end of it. If your professor accuses you of plagiarism tell him that you properly cited him when you said "Thanks to Dennis McKinsey." Let's see if they'll give you credit for the paper.
Rook Hawkins said,
"I've asked Frank on his blog (I posted this letter on his blog and hope he doesn't remove it) to remove all mentions of this deceitful claim that I plagiarize, and let him know if he persists in spreading this slander, I will be forced to take legal action against him."
Hey, bring the lawyers. We have witnesses in the forum who will testify that they thought you wrote the article.
I am not one to remove opinionated comments from my blog. A quick check on it will show numerous occasions where somebody attacks my character or mentality. Such words as "idiot" "strupid and "moron" are but a few of the epithets thrown in my direction. I generally take these with a grain of salt as these are the tactics of a person who has no other case against me then throwing ad hominems around.
I have Christians who have told me you removed their opinion on your arguments in your blog when they refuted you. Afraid of looking like a fool, you removed them. And then later, you lied and said you removed their comments because they attacked you personally.
Rook Hawkins said,
But Frank doesn't seem to know when to draw the line. It's one thing to state an opinion concerning somebody elses character, as mentioned above - but to attack their credibility, especially when the evidence shows the contrary, is quite dishonest and uncalled for. This just goes to show that to people like Frank Walton, facts are just tools to be manipulated. This is the level of dishonesty a theist will go to validate their own opinions and beliefs.
As we've seen that isn't the case. Why, Rook, why, oh, why, did you mix your own personal writings with Dennis McKinsey's? The truth is you wanted to look smart, but since we found out the real you, you flipped.
Rook Hawkins said,
So for those out there who have been tormented by this case brought against me, let this be a reminder that this is what the RRS is fighting for - to free minds and rid the world or irrational people like Frank Walton...
Whoa! You want to get rid of people like me? Is this a threat?
Rook Hawkins said,
...who would better serve their causes by lying and cheating their way through life at the expense of others to gain attention for themselves.
I don't care about attention Rook. I'm not a narcissist like you.
In the end, Rook Hawkins still deliberately took someone else's writings and mixed it in with his own. There's just no denying that. In the forums he even told someone,
"Read what I wrote and prove me wrong from what I wrote." (italics mine)
Shouldn't he have said "Read what someone else wrote"? Or "Read what McKinsey wrote"? But Rook Hawkins did neither of this. He said "I".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* - www.rationalresponders.com/frank_walton_has_been_warned
Post a Comment