To tell you the truth, in reference to this claim that you make, I wouldn't even have thought to ask you the questions above, except, as I just mentioned, I did a little investigating on that larger information box below the one we are discussing, and what I discovered in my investigations, is the questionable honesty with which you appear to operate. Shame on you. (I was originally going to include a copy of the actual box here, but a description should suffice nicely.) As I already said, the box itself has a coloured background which appears to be for emphasis since the non-coloured portion of the page is easy enough to read without the additional coloring. The top two lines of text inside the box, are formatted and worded as follows:
Coverage in theNew York Times
This is followed by:
GodIsImaginary.comhas been mentionedin the New YorkTimes:
And at the bottom of the box, a link:
"If You Post It, TheyWill Pray"
Now owing to the bold typeface of the first two lines, it is natural that this should be the first thing seen. It sounds impressive, the "New York Times" apparently covered your modest little website. It clearly says "Coverage".
The second block of words is not so impressive, however, without the bold typeface to make it stand out, but in actuality, this is the statement of truth. Contrary to what your headline reads, there was no coverage of note of your site in the "New York Times", but merely, as the second block of words points out, a simple mention. But possibly even that would be a positive thing, depending on how extensive that mention was, and what subject pertaining to your site was actually mentioned.
Following the link, however, takes us to a 2-page article in the "New York Times", from Nov./2008, dealing with web-sites that offer people the prayers of others in support of matters that they are presently concerned with. Maybe not exactly my cup of tea, but well-intentioned at least, and seeking to be of service to others. A noble endeavor! The only mention of your site is when the lady being interviewed (the true focus of the article) mentions that some "militant atheists" were attempting to exploit her site to spread their views, and rather than offer prayer to those who requested it, were referring those people, in some cases, to "GodIsImaginary.com". I will add, in all fairness, that the reporter did add a single sentence to the mention in question, but it's rather vague, and I can't even be certain exactly what the writer was saying:"The site urges nonbelievers to spread the word by posting links to Godisimaginary on forums, blogs and news groups."
I suppose he might have been saying that non-believers could spread the word of Atheism by posting to your site, but the way I see it, that would result more in a centralization of Atheistic viewpoints (gathering them together in one place) than a spreading of those same ideas. Like I said, the sentence is quite vague, most likely the reflection of the reporter's total lack of interest in your site, though he made an effort to clarify what the lady who was his true subject was trying to say.
The point I'm actually trying to make, however, is that your claim to "Coverage in the New York Times" is about as realistic as it would be for "The New York Times" to claim coverage on my Blog, simple because I mentioned them a couple of times just now. And for you to boast of the mention that you did get is roughly the equivalent of bragging to the world that you had done some modeling in your day, and then showing them a mug-shot of yourself as proof. Hardly the type of ethics that any writer should aspire to. Again I say, shame on you.
As to what I personally feel is probably the truth concerning your "5 All-time Favourites", it's quite simple really. I suspect that their lofty classification is attained simply by the merit of what you feel are the 5 best examples of your own work. And in that, I find myself quite willing to accept your assessment, and since it would truly be a lot more interesting to tackle a decent argument, rather than simply more of the silliness that made up Proof #1, I have decided to discuss next, those 5 of your "Proofs" that you have highlighted. Depending on just what we find there, we can decide later if there is any reason to continue with the remaining articles[1].[1] Having just scanned the first of your 5 "all-time favourites", however, I have to fear I am going to be greatly disappointed. This argument of yours, "Statistically Analyze Prayer" is far inferior to the argument we just dealt with. You have apparently stepped away from even attempting to offer any evidence, and have decided instead to seek shelter within the total inanity of you own opinion, bolstered only by selective references to any other opinions you could find, that you feel support your own.
