So in the grand tradition of the Labour Day week-end, I've been labouring. Rooms, as we have found chez nous, do not reorganise themselves no matter how much wishful thinking we do. So that has meant a certain amount of moving, painting, carrying, re-painting, and of course hauling a large number of books hither and thither through the house. Returning to the virtual world, then, I was surprised when I checked my email and noticed that there's been some traffic on a particular entry that I wrote a few days back.
What can I say? Have I conflated two different, if ideologically fraternal, individuals? Possibly. I had genuinely formed the impression that dear Denyse and "ForTheKids" were one in the same individual - however, at this moment, I can't find the source for that impression. I thought that I had read it on Pharyngula, but I can't find it right now, having done a quick search. I may do some more looking, when time permits, because I'm mildly curious as to how I could have gotten that wrong. It does happen - I do get things wrong. For example, I was quite embarrassingly old before I worked out how to pronounce and spell the word "catechism", although in retrospect, I need not have bothered.
Here's the thing, though - even if they're not the same, isn't that more due to the whole anonymity paradox? If you gibber under pseudonyms in multiple locations, readers who are doing a lot of bandwidth-soaking are bound to get you confused, unless they are the happy possessors of photographic memories. And if you say things that make someone who is even cursorily acquainted with reason begin to form the suspicion that you are in fact stark staring bonkers, well... what else can I say? You might as well expect to be lumped in with others in the stark staring bonkers crowd. Your identities will begin to merge.
However, with lack of evidence pointing me either way at this point, I have ammended the previous entry accordingly, left my mistake visible, and basically made the whole thing an open question, until such time as I locate the source of my impression. Not a high priority, as I said - I have work to do, children of my own to look after (two "kids" who I want to ensure will know the difference between "mere faith" and evidence and verifiable reality), and a wife and a life and home to look after - all of that. I'll put it down to my increasingly unreliable memory, and offer apologies, such as may be needed, to all concerned. It's a small blow to my small pride, but one that I can suffer, I think.
It also illustrates a key difference between those of us on the reason and evidence side of science issues, as opposed to those on the superstition and ignorance side - when confronted by data that does not match our hypothesis, we don't just stamp our little feet and decry "No!" over and again, in a still louder voice like some recalcitrant toddler. If you have pretensions to being moderately gentlemanly and fair, as I do, then you admit a mistake, or a possible mistake - and then you move on. Which is what I'm doing.
And if ERV would call that a "notpology", that's fine by me.