Nugent Dialogue resourse and discussions
Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 8:26 am
Please put here your thoughts and any relevant links, especially responses, to the discussions.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Exposing the stupidity, lies, and hypocrisy of Social Justice Warriors since July 2012
http://slymepit.com/phpbb/
Rorschach complains a lot, has not a single argument or valid point to make. Compares his side with AC "Die in a Fire" Grayling.[url=http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/03/30/thunderdome-24/comment-page-1/#comment-593884]Rorschach[/url], 60 wrote: This is what happens if you give them a forum. You give them credibility. Atheism and skepticism have already lost and are thrown back 20 years just by letting these lying creeps take part in this debate between supposedly equally valid positions. If those freaks weren’t atheists, not one person in the movement would have hesitated to call them out on their harassment, bullying, stalking and lying tactics. But here we are, having a “dialogueâ€. Next up, AC Grayling versus Franc Hoggle. Matt Dillahunty vs Bluharmony. Until we can all be friends again.
[url=http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/03/30/thunderdome-24/comment-page-1/#comment-593887]Rorschach[/url], 62 wrote:It is also somewhat ironic and yet a hallmark of the slymers, that even in this “dialogueâ€, they get to hide behind the anonymous “Jack Smith†nym, while Stephanie Zvan is named. Could they not find one slymer who had the guts to write under their real name? You’ve got to laugh.
Fail.[url=http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/03/30/thunderdome-24/comment-page-1/#comment-593879]Rorschach[/url], 57 wrote:
Soooooo, the opening statements for Mick Nugent’s “Dialog†are up now. I have to say I gave up fairly early into the opposing side’s statement: By Jack Smith (with input from a working group including these individual volunteers: Tim Skellett, Renee Hendricks, Thaumas Themelios, Skep Tickle but not necessarily reflecting the entirety of each of their views)
 Thanks, but no thanks.
Good idea.Jack wrote:I think we can leave this place for data/links and the main forum for comments. sub forums are so rarely used.
We dealt with that in our statement too. To be honest all the responses I have seen tell me they either have not read it or are so brainwashed by their own dogma they read what they want to see.Stretchycheese wrote:These people are so thoroughly indoctrinated in dogma and propaganda, that virtually anything you say will be interpreted as some sinister evil motivation. If you said "let's come together to an agreement" they'd say, "Come together! That's sexual harassment! You just want to grope women! Rapist! Fuck you, die on a fire!!!!!"
It really is like talking to religious fundamentalists.
To be fair to Nugent he is playing it cautiously. I agree and he will relax as we proceed. . This stops either side trying to derail or go off on a tangent and stick to the points as numbered.16bitheretic wrote:Wow, Nugent's rules in responding to the OP posts is really restrictive, but I'm pondering how I want to respond to both. Hopefully the discussion area will offer more breathing room.
16bitheretic says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
March 31, 2013 at 9:20 pm
1: Agreed, there is never a “one true path†approach to widening the exposure and adoption of evidence based worldviews and philosophies over those of faith and superstition. The amount of approaches are as varied as the number of people involved.
2. Agreed. Scientific methodology and progress requires a large number of people specializing in various specific endeavors from research to education to labwork, otherwise the process just wouldn’t work. The days of one forward thinking genius revolutionizing an entire field singlehandedly are over as the knowledge and skill set requirements of specific fields increase dramatically as more knowledge is acquired.
3. Agree: see point #2
4. Disagree: I view skepticism as just a label for the foundation of the scientific methodology and inquiry, and both labels as somewhat separate from atheism/secularism since one need not necessarily need science or skeptical thought to be an atheist. I also don’t see the specific causes of secularism being dogmatically tied to one approach from within the secular community. Certainly some have expressed concern over the public aggressiveness of some American Atheists campaigns or accusing some humanism groups of being too accommodating of theists, but I don’t think that on the whole those interested in promoting the atheist and skeptic causes are all clamoring for a “one true path†approach to be adopted by the community as a whole. I think if there was this massive swell of demand for one single-minded approach we wouldn’t see secular advocates promote the confrontational rhetoric of Hitchens as much as the warm and engaging educational approach of people like Sagan. I think any coalescing of thought behind “one true path†ideals is more coming from peripheral political and social issues that aren’t part of this current discussion from this post.
5. Disagree. Sure, there’s always been a debate between just how much skepticism can say about god or gods, there always will be that debate. There’s also alot of pondering about how to get atheism/secularism to be more accepted by various racial and ethnic minority groups, and I don’t think we have a clear answer on that problem. As an Asian-American person I can’t explain how or why my particular ethnicity in the US is less religious than African-American or Hispanic-American ethnicities, and I really don’t see too much discussion about it in the wake of the debates over politics and feminism in the past 2 years.
Separate from that my main reason for saying disagree is that science and skepticism are methodologies to determine the factual status of claims and hypothesis, it has nothing to do with one’s gender, race, sexual orientation or expression. It also has little to do with the subsequent identity politics and tribalism that are so popular and so divisive in online discussions.
6. Agree for the most part. These words do tend to be used in absolutist terms that aren’t helpful in debate or discussions.
7. Agree, seems we’re retreading ground from the first couple posts .
8. Agree, as this is a re-iteration of the initial premises with more detail and promotion of active groups. it is worth noting as an aside that some of the groups listed need not require their members to be secularists, atheists or even skeptics. For example, I’m not sure the ACLU cares what your stance on homeopathy is if you’re aiding them in their fight to stop discrimination of black people in voting districts, and it;s possible to be a theist and promote the cause of the National Center for Science Education.
9. Agree. I don’t necessarily tie my own stances on racial and gender equality to my atheism since my views on social issues were in place long before I disbelieved in gods, and nowadays I’d have no personal problems with doing something like charity work along with people who have superstitious beliefs. However, if someone wants to have a group of atheists or skeptics that do some cause that’s fine by me so long as they don’t use their social advocacy as a wedge for identity politics against other atheists or skeptics who aren’t in their group or who don’t see the link between their views on skeptical inquiry or supernatural claims and social issues.
10. Agree, not much to say here. In fact this more describes me than the previous couple of posts since I’m not a member of any national atheist/secular or skeptic groups.
11. Agree, see previous points addressing this.
12. Agree. you don’t have to go into ethics. That’s sort of a separate issue from atheism, secularism, science or skepticism.
13. Neither agree nor disagree, I’ve never read any of these materials so my opinion on them as of now is irrelevant.
14. Agree. I think the emotional aspect of advocacy for causes has been one of the central issues to the tribalism and division of the last few years. I’m not advocating that we become Vulcans, but we need some level of detachment from emotion to analyze things properly without escalating rhetoric and division.
15. Agree for the most part. Some failed messaging or efforts will lead to one conclusion that may not be applicable to a different failed effort to spread a message or achieve a goal. I don’t necessarily think all people base their responses on evidence however, so I will disagree on that particular point, but the overall point of different approaches resulting from the processes is a valid one.
16. Agree. See previous points (since this is a conclusion point)
Is that the trackback to Steffy's blog?Jack wrote:Just an update I have requested the first post in our section to be deleted, it does not comply with guidelines. I have also requested clarification on moderation.
I'm not playing games with people from a blog. They post at Nugent's or keep out of it, up to them.
Tigzy wrote:Is that the trackback to Steffy's blog?Jack wrote:Just an update I have requested the first post in our section to be deleted, it does not comply with guidelines. I have also requested clarification on moderation.
I'm not playing games with people from a blog. They post at Nugent's or keep out of it, up to them.
Bit..sneaky of her, wasn't it.
I'm reminded of Ophelia's gripes about her post being moderated ( :lol: ) at the RDFRS site, because of the blog-spam she put in it. I am beginning to wonder if indeed the call has gone out from Ed to increase FTBs Google juice.
Yep and 16bit. Please keep it coming.Wonderist wrote:Nice thorough comments on the opening statements, Submariner! That's the kind of approach to discussion I've been hoping for since before EG! Brings a tear to my eye, so see it finally come to light...
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JB0iafHEffQ/U ... y+tear.jpg
Submariner wrote:Submariner says:
March 31, 2013 at 5:12 pm
1. I agree with this with reservations. I’m not certain there are “myriad†solutions to “promoting reason, critical thinking, science, skepticism, atheism and secularismâ€. There are a handful of methods which will be more efficient to prioritize depending on efficacy
2. I agree with this with reservations. All of the sciences? Some have had issues with several of the “soft†sciences. Sociology and evolutionary psychology are examples from either “sideâ€.
3. I agree.
4. I agree. This statement is odd in that taken alone, I would not be able to tell which “side†was being referred to.
5. I disagree. How is it possible for reason, critical thinking, science, etc. to have a white, middle class, wealthy and born gendered “relationship� These things are clearly defined. Reason is reason regardless of one’s skin color, gender, economic status etc. This principle is the core of the “equality†argument, in that it does not matter the characteristics of the person with the idea, just the idea matters.
6. I agree. See #4 above.
7. I agree. See #4 above.
8. I agree.
9. I’m having trouble parsing this paragraph as it’s a bit vague, so I’ll withhold conditional agreement/disagreement until it is clarified.
10. I agree.
11. I agree with reservations. Ethics, if universally applied (to theists, purveyors of various woo, and other members of the group which hold no belief in deities) is agreeable. If different ethics hold for different groups, them I disagree.
12. N/A
13. I agree with reservations. Behavior is not one of the topics on the table at this time. Including behavior in this paragraph seems to be a version of prescriptivism, which was decried in paragraph 7 above. Perhaps, I’m reading to much into it though. I will request clarification on why behavior was included here.
Also, what is “the prize†to be kept an eye on? If it is the values at the top of this page (as set out by Mr. Nugent) then I agree.
14. I agree.
15. I agree with reservations. This word behavior appears again and with no further explanation as to it’s intent, I’m hesitant to agree here.
16. I agree with reservations. See #11 above regarding the “ethics†argument.
I strongly doubt she had any ulterior motives. The controls for trackbacking are entirely in Nugent's hands. Zvan could simply have posted a URL, and it would trigger a trackback automatically on Nugent's site, based on his trackback settings. I strongly agree with Jack that trackbacks should be turned off on moderated threads, as it allows a backdoor right through the process of this 'structured dialogue'. Defeats the whole purpose of structuring it in the first place.Tigzy wrote:Is that the trackback to Steffy's blog?Jack wrote:Just an update I have requested the first post in our section to be deleted, it does not comply with guidelines. I have also requested clarification on moderation.
I'm not playing games with people from a blog. They post at Nugent's or keep out of it, up to them.
Bit..sneaky of her, wasn't it.
I'm reminded of Ophelia's gripes about her post being moderated ( :lol: ) at the RDFRS site, because of the blog-spam she put in it. I am beginning to wonder if indeed the call has gone out from Ed to increase FTBs Google juice.
There is no evidence this had anything to do with Zvan. Anyway it's due to be looked at by the respective mods. Moving to the public/less moderated area would be fine. Just not in an area where there is tight requirements on posting and no ability to respond to outside comments. It's in the wrong place.Wonderist wrote:I strongly doubt she had any ulterior motives. The controls for trackbacking are entirely in Nugent's hands. Zvan could simply have posted a URL, and it would trigger a trackback automatically on Nugent's site, based on his trackback settings. I strongly agree with Jack that trackbacks should be turned off on moderated threads, as it allows a backdoor right through the process of this 'structured dialogue'. Defeats the whole purpose of structuring it in the first place.Tigzy wrote:Is that the trackback to Steffy's blog?Jack wrote:Just an update I have requested the first post in our section to be deleted, it does not comply with guidelines. I have also requested clarification on moderation.
I'm not playing games with people from a blog. They post at Nugent's or keep out of it, up to them.
Bit..sneaky of her, wasn't it.
I'm reminded of Ophelia's gripes about her post being moderated ( :lol: ) at the RDFRS site, because of the blog-spam she put in it. I am beginning to wonder if indeed the call has gone out from Ed to increase FTBs Google juice.
We are not saying they should not form any groups they wish. It is not possible or desirable to try to assert that. They are claiming we want them out or to be stopped. That is simply not true. They can have their safe spaces, heavy moderation and cliques if they want. We all can. But they do not have the right to impose their views on others or to shut down people that do not agree with them. Our statement says all that.Karmakin wrote:I don't really have too much to say about this, other than I pretty much agree 100% with Jack, and I think that Zvan gave up the shop, pretty much.
The biggest manifestation of the "One True Path" style thinking is the whole Call-Out Culture stuff that was pushed by people (including her). Now I'm willing to say that maybe the whole thing went way out of control, but to a degree, if she really does think so she has a direct responsibility in terms of putting it back in the bottle.
Not that that's the only place it came from...I don't think completely excluding social issues from the skeptic movement is workable either (which is the "OTP" stuff from "our" side), but again, I think that the former overshadows the latter to a large degree.
What are you saying they "do not have the right to" do, specifically?Jack wrote:But they do not have the right to impose their views on others or to shut down people that do not agree with them.
I responded thusly:26
rorschach
April 1, 2013 at 12:14 am (UTC -5)
I’ll repeat here what I said last night on Pharyngula:
This is what happens if you give them a forum. You give them credibility. Atheism and skepticism have already lost and are thrown back 20 years just by letting these lying creeps take part in this debate between supposedly equally valid positions.
If those freaks weren’t atheists, not one person in the movement would have hesitated to call them out on their harassment, bullying, stalking and lying tactics. But here we are, having a “dialogueâ€.
It’s frustrating and infuriating.
Me wrote:28
Thaumas Themelios
April 1, 2013 at 5:43 am (UTC -5)
Hi rorschach,
As one of the “freaks†you are referring to, I would actually readily welcome being called out on any “harassment, bullying, stalking and lying tactics†I have engaged in, as I’m currently unaware of any such activity on my part; but if I am indeed guilty of such, I would much appreciate it being pointed out so that I could apologize for it, and retract any false statements I’ve made. Could you please link to or quote me where I’ve done any of these things? It would be very much appreciated. Thanks!
Thaumas, aka Wonderist
I'm not intending to speak for Jack, but I would imagine he means "in principle", not "in law". He seems to be referring to the principles he/we proposed in the opening statement.Apples wrote:What are you saying they "do not have the right to" do, specifically?Jack wrote:But they do not have the right to impose their views on others or to shut down people that do not agree with them.
I see no evidence he even read our statement and his casual abuse is so typical it goes over my head now. It's incredible how otherwise reasonable people can get massive blind spots.Wonderist wrote:In the meantime, here's a bit of the judo I was referring to. After rorschach (Martin Wagner of the Atheist Experience program) spewed this blather:I responded thusly:26
rorschach
April 1, 2013 at 12:14 am (UTC -5)
I’ll repeat here what I said last night on Pharyngula:
This is what happens if you give them a forum. You give them credibility. Atheism and skepticism have already lost and are thrown back 20 years just by letting these lying creeps take part in this debate between supposedly equally valid positions.
If those freaks weren’t atheists, not one person in the movement would have hesitated to call them out on their harassment, bullying, stalking and lying tactics. But here we are, having a “dialogueâ€.
It’s frustrating and infuriating.Me wrote:28
Thaumas Themelios
April 1, 2013 at 5:43 am (UTC -5)
Hi rorschach,
As one of the “freaks†you are referring to, I would actually readily welcome being called out on any “harassment, bullying, stalking and lying tactics†I have engaged in, as I’m currently unaware of any such activity on my part; but if I am indeed guilty of such, I would much appreciate it being pointed out so that I could apologize for it, and retract any false statements I’ve made. Could you please link to or quote me where I’ve done any of these things? It would be very much appreciated. Thanks!
Thaumas, aka Wonderist
Yep.Wonderist wrote:I'm not intending to speak for Jack, but I would imagine he means "in principle", not "in law". He seems to be referring to the principles he/we proposed in the opening statement.Apples wrote:What are you saying they "do not have the right to" do, specifically?Jack wrote:But they do not have the right to impose their views on others or to shut down people that do not agree with them.
Worthless trolling from oolon skipped. My 'o soto gari' here:30
rorschach
April 1, 2013 at 5:56 am (UTC -5)
Thaumas, you’re quite right, I don’t know you, and I have no desire at all to ever get to know you. Because you have chosen to, if not actively contribute to the harassment and bullying of Ophelia Benson and Rebecca Watson, to name but two persons, then at least to defend and enable such practices. And that tells me all I need to know.
[youtube]mgjfBnTMn1c[/youtube]32
Thaumas Themelios
April 1, 2013 at 7:34 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
rorshach,
Ah, I see, so when you referred to “those freaks†taking part in this dialogue, you weren’t referring to me, then? I’m one of the five involved in the structured dialogue. Which of the other four are you referring to, then? There’s Jack, Tim, and Renee, and also Skep Tickle (who is acting as a moderator). Which of those four are you referring to as engaging in “harassment, bullying, stalking and lying tactics�
Also, could you please point out where I’ve defended and enabled “the harassment and bullying of Ophelia Benson and Rebecca Watson, to name but two persons, then at least to defend and enable� Would very much appreciate that being pointed out.
Links and/or quotes, please.
Well, yes - but as you can see from the followup comments, this is a street-fight, not a judo demonstration -- and this particular skirmish is in the alley behind Svan's dojo, where she calls the shots - so, good luck.Wonderist wrote: My 'o soto gari' here:
In case of memory-holing: http://www.freezepage.com/1364827977RTEZPPIJKDThaumas Themelios says:
April 1, 2013 at 9:46 am
Stephanie Zvan:I think you misread my question. I said *supporting*:False accusations of bullying and harassment?
Yeah, fuck you. Go away.Based on these prior quotes from rorschach (#30)Do false accusations of supporting “bullying and harassmentâ€And this one from LeftSidePositive (#37)if not actively contribute to the harassment and bullying of Ophelia Benson and Rebecca Watson, to name but two persons, then at least to defend and enable such practices.Are you saying that these quotes are *not* making an accusation against me of supporting bullying and harassment? Are you saying I should not defend myself from such false accusations? Or be able to respond where they are made? I’m unclear on if you mean “go away†literally, or figuratively, perhaps in reaction from misreading what I wrote and thinking I was referring to the actual acts, and not “supportâ€? Could you clarify? If you indeed want me to go away, I will, of course; it’s your blog after all. Thanks for allowing me to defend myself up to this point at least. It's a courtesy I very much appreciate.And even if you didn’t actively take part in harassing people (and I just plain don’t know you so I don’t know if you have personally said or done anything odious), if you notice that the Slymepit is harassing people, and you choose to stick around and be friends with them, you are enabling them. You are giving them social support for their views.
Trust me, it's a judo demonstration. She calls the shots on her blog. I call the shots where I'm given a chance to reply. And I gather evidence along the way. I use their momentum against them. It is 100% entirely her choice to limbo me or ban me. I respect that choice. Doesn't mean I have to respect the final decision. In fact, there's only one final decision I would respect in this case. And I'm sure many many skeptics and rationalists will agree with me on it.Apples wrote:Well, yes - but as you can see from the followup comments, this is a street-fight, not a judo demonstration -- and this particular skirmish is in the alley behind Svan's dojo, where she calls the shots - so, good luck.Wonderist wrote: My 'o soto gari' here:
Really, that's him? Interesting to know, in case he ever wants to reinstate my page on his wiki.Wonderist wrote:In the meantime, here's a bit of the judo I was referring to. After rorschach (Martin Wagner of the Atheist Experience program)
Wax on, wax off.Trust me, it's a judo demonstration. She calls the shots on her blog. I call the shots where I'm given a chance to reply. And I gather evidence along the way. I use their momentum against them.
I think you are wrong.Wonderist wrote:I googled to check, based on overhearing it here. It seems pretty clear that it's him. 'rorscach' links to the 'Furious Purpose' blog, which author is 'Martin', and googling for [martin wagner "furious purpose"] brings up many claims it's his blog. I didn't go further than that, that was sufficient for me. If I'm wrong, I'll retract.
Sand 'a floor.I think you are wrong.
Rorschach is 'Martin' from the furious purpose blog.
But that Martin is a physician who is from, and resides in, Australia. Surely Martin Wagner of the Atheist Experience is American?
He had this to say at the 'Dome after the karate kid, I mean judo, demonstration:Strawkins wrote:Martin'Rorschach's claims to fame are the fact that he has absolutely no demonstrable sense of humor and the interesting fact that he is the only known person who admits to have been in the hotel bar with Watson at 4 AM on the fateful night of Elevatorgate.
I must have missed his involvement in a "Laden fiasco" disagreement with Zvan.rorschach wrote:I want to say this one thing here since I don’t have Stephanie Zvan’s email address. I know that she probably still hates my guts after the Laden fiasco, but I appreciate that there is no editing or blocking of my comments on Almost Diamonds. I don’t normally comment there, but I feel strongly about Mick Nugent’s Courtyard ot the Gentile Atheists, so I’ve been active there a bit the last few days. She’s letting me post there no worries, and it’s appreciated.
Yep, it appears I made a clear mistake, based on a too-cursory check of Google. Thank fuck I was wrong! Martin Wagner, of Atheist Experience, I hereby apologize for misrepresenting you as being 'Martin' of the "Furious Purpose" blog. I am very glad you are not the same person as the owner of that blog, and I should have checked more carefully. Mea culpa. I apologize. If Zvan would be so kind as to grant me a right of reply, I would happily post this same apology on her blog where I also made this error.Dick Strawkins wrote:I think you are wrong.Wonderist wrote:I googled to check, based on overhearing it here. It seems pretty clear that it's him. 'rorscach' links to the 'Furious Purpose' blog, which author is 'Martin', and googling for [martin wagner "furious purpose"] brings up many claims it's his blog. I didn't go further than that, that was sufficient for me. If I'm wrong, I'll retract.
Rorschach is 'Martin' from the furious purpose blog.
But that Martin is a physician who is from, and resides in, Australia. Surely Martin Wagner of the Atheist Experience is American?
Martin'Rorschach's claims to fame are the fact that he has absolutely no demonstrable sense of humor and the interesting fact that he is the only known person who admits to have been in the hotel bar with Watson at 4 AM on the fateful night of Elevatorgate.
See my breakfall, above. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakfall)Apples wrote:Sand 'a floor.I think you are wrong.
Rorschach is 'Martin' from the furious purpose blog.
But that Martin is a physician who is from, and resides in, Australia. Surely Martin Wagner of the Atheist Experience is American?
Thanks John it's a generous offer. I sent an email out a couple of hours ago about it. From a purely personal perspective the more the merrier and I have always felt that way. There is a big disadvantage in numbers though (slows things a lot) but I suspect we can get round that. I am one of 5 so others will express their own opinion.John Greg wrote:For the record, I am a professional technical writer, and have been so for over 15 years, earning something in the range of 40 to 60 dollars per hour, depending on the contract. Because I thought the initial B Team statement had valid ideas, but was very poorly written, I have offered the B Team my professional services, gratis, to review, edit, and proof their writing before they post it.
I await their decision on this offer.
Why am I not surprised? Because this has been occurring for a long time, to a large number of people, and from more than just Stephanie Zvan. Reasonable replies that merely disagree are shunned, blocked, deleted, and sometimes even modified, and those commenters are either banned or blocked from responding (moderation limbo) to defend themselves. In this case, direct and false accusations against my character (of supporting bullying and harassment, which I do not) are left to stand, and I'm not granted a 'right of reply' to defend myself. Not that I should *have to* defend myself in the first place; such blatant accusations should not be made willy nilly in the first place! But the end result is this: character assassination via ad hominem, guilt by association, rumour mongering, and numerous other fallacies and social bullying tactics.Thaumas Themelios says:
April 1, 2013 at 9:46 am
Stephanie Zvan:I think you misread my question. I said *supporting*:False accusations of bullying and harassment?
Yeah, fuck you. Go away.Based on these prior quotes from rorschach (#30)Do false accusations of supporting “bullying and harassmentâ€And this one from LeftSidePositive (#37)if not actively contribute to the harassment and bullying of Ophelia Benson and Rebecca Watson, to name but two persons, then at least to defend and enable such practices.Are you saying that these quotes are *not* making an accusation against me of supporting bullying and harassment? Are you saying I should not defend myself from such false accusations? Or be able to respond where they are made? I’m unclear on if you mean “go away†literally, or figuratively, perhaps in reaction from misreading what I wrote and thinking I was referring to the actual acts, and not “supportâ€? Could you clarify? If you indeed want me to go away, I will, of course; it’s your blog after all. Thanks for allowing me to defend myself up to this point at least. It's a courtesy I very much appreciate.And even if you didn’t actively take part in harassing people (and I just plain don’t know you so I don’t know if you have personally said or done anything odious), if you notice that the Slymepit is harassing people, and you choose to stick around and be friends with them, you are enabling them. You are giving them social support for their views.
Why do you think anyone needs to trust her?Lsuoma wrote:Thaumas - and you trust her to act decently at Nugnut's?
<carlin>
Why, I think not!
</carlin>
Wonderist wrote:Looking for new people to help out with the Nugent discussion. See notice here: http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 733#p81733
If you're interested, reply here or send a PM to any of: Jack, Renee Hendricks, Skep Tickle, or Wonderist.