A while back, I received a press release spam¹ from someone on behalf of a chap that goes by the name Victor Senchenko. Senchenko wrote a book, which he has self-published, and sent me the spam trying to get me to buy it.

As (hopefully) with most people, I don’t generally tend to buy things from spam emails, but this one was particularly interesting as it seems to have been addressed directly to me and hence, presumably, sought to appeal to my vanity in being a “freethinker”. However, instead of taking Senchenko up on his kind offer to buy his wares, I wrote a blog post. Normally I wouldn’t give such credence to spam, but I had had a bit to drink that evening.

I made a rather lack-lustre comment, and thought no more of it, but it seems that Senchenko has taken it upon himself to know me better than I know myself and takes great pains, and in no undercertain terms, to tell me about me. However, the appeal to vanity of the original spam is well gone and this email seeks to shame me into buying his book.

I should thank you for publishing my initial Press Release emailed to you by the volunteers on my media team.

It is also the same guys who had just recently trawled across your site again, bringing your commentary to my attention. Because of that, on 12-6-08 you were sent another Press Release: this one giving a different perspective of the same intent: to provide confirmation that gods not only do not physically exists [sic], but that they are not even physically required by all that physically exists to physically exist.

I was indeed sent another press release. This time I just marked it, rightly, as spam². Again I thought no more of it. I was hoping that Google Mail’s spam filter would take care of the rest. Apparently it hasn’t.

Now, as a human, you may feel that you have all the right to scorn information sent to you, simply because you feel that you don’t have to examine it for yourself before you publicly reject it. The frightening element of this is that you actually present yourself as an intellectual liberal freethinker, while being the very opposite: a repressive rejecter: nothing more than an intellectual coward, who tolerates no unusual claims, simply because they are unusual claims. So listen to your prejudices, Nullifidian – a person having no faith or religious belief – when given an opportunity to gain knowledge that you are right than [sic] gods do not exist:

“Yeah, I didn’t give him the satisfaction of a link. So sue me.

“Frankly, this sounds more like a scientologist than anything else but, then again, even without the Xenu nonsense, I think they’re barking.

“Oh, and guess what? I’m very probably not going to buy his book, even with the rather tempting reward of a refund of the cover price for his generous offer. Fancy that.”

Fancy what? No doubt, you were so proud of yourself when you expressed these sentiments. Simply because you were so pissed – by your own words – your lack of conscious rational prevented you from recognizing that which you had always have been seeking.

I have a right to accept or reject anything that I see fit. Usually I try to have a good reason for rejecting things, and things being advertised by spam raise red flags to me. Pride had nothing to do with it.

I do not present myself as an intellectual liberal freethinker, I present myself as a concerned citizen. Whatever attitude Senchenko seeks to impose on me, I reject unless I explicitly claim it for myself. I consider myself as liberal (in terms of liberty over tyranny) when compared to social norms. I don’t consider myself an intellectual, but I do consider myself someone who values thinking.

Seeking? What have I been seeking? Proof that gods do not exist? If Senchenko really thinks so, he doesn’t know me anywhere near as well as he thinks he does. And, even in my state of mild to moderate intoxication (rather than being so pissed as Senchenko claims) I was still able to read and write quite coherently.

After all, did you ever presume that proof of god non-existence would come from current science? Pigs would fly first. For current science – especially physics – are the stream of the most delusionary [sic] fabrications that continue to dupe humanity – including you – in believing that ‘time’ physically exists; that ‘dominant males’, such as kings and emperors, have a god given right to rule, because gods, supposedly, gave them that right to rule. Should you consider me currently naïve, just consider Mugabe’s claim that “only god can oust him”. Then consider the same current situation over the rest of this planet.

No, I didn’t presume that proof of god non-existence would come from current science. And apparently Senchenko thinks that I think “time” physically exists (I don’t) and that kings have a ‘right to rule (I’m a [small 'R'] republican).

Senchenko doesn’t know me at all…

Frankly, I’m embarrassed for you, atheisrt [sic], for you are the worst example of humanity: that which pretends to be the best of human understanding, but which, in actual fact, is nothing but a sham, a fraud, a liar.

Oh, really? What exactly have I lied about? Please, Senchenko, tell me, and I’ll retract it if it isn’t true. If it is true, then I’ll expect an apology for this libel.

By your own admission, you had not bothered to read the book in question, prior to mocking it. If this is what you were taught to assess knowledge – and I know it was not – then you had failed the first test of any basic principle of knowledge acquisition: examine it for yourself first-hand, if possible. For only then – and only then – can you possibly make an informed judgment. The key word here is: ‘informed’. Instead you chose to show your lack of professionalism of any scientist: to mock in ignorance. A shameful and undignified behavior, to be chastised by any pedagogue.

No, I freely admit to not having read Senchenko’s book. This isn’t really surprising: I haven’t read most of the books ever written, and indeed I still have about fifteen books on my bookshelf that I have still to read. Does Senchenko expect me to drop everything to read his?

And, apparently, I’m now an unprofessional scientist.

You had chosen to belittle the knowledge offered to you, without personally assessing it. An act of an ignorant intellectual cowardice.

Senchenko seems to be under the mistaken apprehension that I belittled his claimed knowledge. I didn’t belittle it as I have no knowledge of it. However, his spam made claims that I am dubious of, and it was because, and only because, I was unwilling to trust Senchenko and his spam that I refused to partake of his offer. However, more on this below.

Senchenko should, of course, have sent his spam press release to the relevant news agencies and journals, not to a lowly and relatively obscure blogger. They have vastly more resources available and experience to investigate his claims.

Are you now going to retract? Or are you going to read the book, and then, having become INFORMED, either still crap on it, INFORMEDLY (an absolute right you shall have, with me being the brunt of it), or acknowledge that you had learned all that current humans do not know, just as the Press Release claims?

I really don’t have any idea as to what I am supposed to retract. My refusal to promoted his spam with a link? My opinion that it reads like a Scientology manual? My refusal to buy his wares? I will retract none of these.

The choice is yours, of course. But do understand this most seriously: my site is more than capable of exposing intellectual cowards. I have no fears of exposing people like you for being what you are: a gutless crow; an intellectual coward.

Now then, buddy, you think I’m being harsh? I dare you to post all this on your blog. I have no problem of doing the same on my site, even if you don’t.

While I’m not Senchenko’s buddy, especially when he has then threatened to “expose” me, I have accepted his challenge by publishing his email in full.

Of course, you may choose to read the book for yourself and inform me of this fact. In which case I shall reserve my online judgment of your attitude until you can provide an INFORMED opinion of the book, which I promise to post in full.

Kind regards,
Victor Senchenko

Kind regards? What an interesting choice of closure.

Senchenko, if you’re reading this, I call your bluff. I’ve posted this email in full.

And, if you really want me to read your book, I have a counter offer: send me a copy of the book and I will read it with as much rigour as I’m able. Should I be so convinced then I will undertake to pay you the full cover price and write a fair review of the book. If I’m not convinced, then I shall return the book to you and write a fair review of the book.

As you appear to be so very confident that you have the knowledge and arguments that the rest of us are not party to, shall we put the onus of risk onto you and place the mantle of trust onto me? It seems only fair, don’t you think?

1. defined as unsolicited commercial email [↩]
2. still defined as unsolicited commercial email [↩]

This entry was posted Sunday, June 29th, 2008 at 7:39 pm and is filed under email, nullifidian.net, response, spam, Victor Senchenko. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.