Bleeding from the Bunghole

[Trophy]

I don't have access to Shermer's financial details but, at first glance, I can't see the cost being unmanageable.
I think the bad publicity ship already sailed when Peez started flinging shit at him. If he'd ignored it he could have just dismissed Myers as a loon and the whole thing as laughable.
I absolutely understand him wanting his name cleared but a C&D that's ignored and then not followed-up is essentially:

"Hey, you looking for a fight?"
"Yup".
*crickets chirping*

The only up-side I see is inadvertent, in that it likely emboldens Myers to jump even harder on the trap-door in future.

It just doesn't make sense to me but Shermer's a hell of a lot smarter than I am so who the hell knows what he's thinking?

I mean, this is a man who can apparently convince women to get plastered by means of telekinesis so the thoughts of such a being are surely unknowable to the rest of us.

The thing is, PZ is now a nobody, a troll, a random loudmouth on internet. And you don't waste money sueing random loudmouths online.

[Trophy]

BTW, have you all seen this ted talk by Elizabeth Loftus on TED? It's very relevant to all these "eye-witness" testimonies that the no-longer-called skeptics circulate around their blogs as solid pieces of evidence.

[welch]

Welch said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 97#p135697):

It also doesn't make anyone do shit they wouldn't normally do, it just gives them an excuse.

Actually, I don't think you are technically right with that. As far as I can remember, alcohol can indeed make people do things they would not ordinarily do, due to the effect it has on cognitive function, subduing or releasing even deeply enforced social constraints and morés that people function socially with, and, so to speak, allowing the R-complex to take precedence over the cerebral cortex and its social functions controls.

I could, of course, be wrong about that, but I don't think I am.

Bottom line: I think there is too much oversimplification of alcohol's effect on cognitive/behavioural function.

Good point. Perhaps better would be to say "Alcohol doesn't turn you into a completely different person. It can make you less of a functioning person, in terms of thinking, but if you have anger issues when drunk, it's fair to say they're there sober too, etc."

[welch]

oh bless your heart, you think that because I think RMS and his little fundies are full of shit that I have no use for open software. Could you be any more precious? Or wrong? There are a number of advantages to that developmental methodology, and just as many disadvantages, which is why things like Open/LibreOffice have such shitty UI. On the server side, it's awesome. On the human side, it blows fucking chunks.

I think you need to pick better examples. LibreOffice was forked from OpenOffice in 2010. Most of its "shitty UI" was written by StarDivision/Oracle.

In TWO YEARS they can't even begin to fix it? WTF happened to all the amazing speed and efficiency of Open Source. (I already know. UI is actually really fucking hard, boring, and you have to think about other people. So don't hold your breath.)

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html

"A Stark Moral Choice"

The section in question discusses a personal choice for his career somewhere around the KT boundary. It does not back your claim that RMS argues that free software confers moral superiority (to whom anyway?).

As I thought. Let's make this easy. You tell me the words Stallman must use for my statement to be correct. He's ranted about the moral superiority of Free software for years, if not decades, but i've no interest in reading your mind. You put the words here. Then i"ll see if he actually said those precise words. It will make things easier on everyone.

also, again, for the love of christ, why must FSF people assume that if you don't love the FSF, the ONLY possible reason is because you don't know anything about it.

I am not an FSF person. I linked to the FSF because you were confusing their definition of "free software" and your own and were asserting that their license is in conflict with their own ideals. If you insist that you actually knew that and were deliberately spinning this to make them look like hypocrites then please don't do that again in the future.

[/quote]

Their license is not free. It is not even close to free. It is highly restrictive and lays down specific terms that tell you what you cannot do with GPL'd software.

That's not free, that's "Free". The GPL is not about freedom in any sense other than what the people behind the GPL decide "freedom" is. If they don't like something, then they modify the GPL to ban the use of GPL'd software in that instance.

It's not significantly different then the way the Soviet Leaders meant "freedom": "you're free to act in the way we require and do the things we allow".

That's why i point out the BSD license as a truly "free" license. The GPL simply is not, and therefore, their claims to supporting software freedom are crapola.

[welch]

To quote Jordan Hubbard, one of the folks who founded FreeBSD:

The GPL is not something we really considered to be a license so much as a political manifesto, and speaking purely for myself, I prefer to keep my license agreements and my politics separate. I feel that code which isn't being used in a situation where it COULD be used is code which isn't achieving its full potential and the GPL scares a lot of potential users away, which is simply counter-productive in my opinion. I don't care whether or not the users give their changes back to me, that's just an added bonus if it happens and nothing I'd want to try and enforce at the point of a gun.

Which part of the GPL requires sending changes back to the author?
I have since ca. 2005 not seen any chip vendor that wasn't offering a Linux implementation for their SoCs. I have never seen a *BSD port being offered no matter how permissive the license. These are some of the most restrictive and secretive people around and they manage to handle Linux' GPLv2.

RMS views this as a moral issue and treats people the way you'd expect. If you don't agree with him, you're a bad person. Software and companies that don't conform to his view of the world are *morally* bad.

Well here is RMS criticizing some random company: http://stallman.org/apple.html
You will notice that he has specific claims about specific business practices of that company. Your assertion that he smears everyone just for not offering free software is a caricature of the very detailed criticisms that he actually offers.

Ah, the GPLv2. Which is not the current version is it? No. No it is not. As well, nice way to misrepresent what Hubbard was trying to say. Oh and points for "i've not seen it so it's not there."

[Hunt]

And I also believe this has mostly died out and PZ Lyers has gotten away with it, if only because of court costs as well as possible "truth is ultimate defense" defense showing PZ did receive as he claims emails to that effect.

This would be annoying, but typical.

That would be unfortunate, because a personality like Myer's doesn't just go away when it hasn't been quelled. It's kind of like malaria. It will be back, and probably more virulent form than before.

[Hunt]

And I also believe this has mostly died out and PZ Lyers has gotten away with it, if only because of court costs as well as possible "truth is ultimate defense" defense showing PZ did receive as he claims emails to that effect.

This would be annoying, but typical.

That would be unfortunate, because a personality like Myer's doesn't just go away when it hasn't been quelled. It's kind of like malaria. It will be back, and probably more virulent form than before.

[welch]

As someone who has a degree in, and spent 15 years as a commercial software programmer,

I don't even disagree with welch on that one but I can't help but highlight your argument from authority. Now lets get to comparing who has the biggest one.

So he's not allow to point out the thing that gives him some vague form of expertise in the field?

[bovarchist]

As far as I'm aware Keynesian economic policies were implemented in order to recover from the recession the USA experienced after WW2, and I guess it worked reasonably well.

Well, one could argue that it wasn't full on Keynesian policies implemented. America has always been a hybrid of several economic approaches. The bigger question is -- are those policies sustainable in the long run or is it ultimately a pyramid scheme which will eventually implode as our population ages? I don't know. But the biggest problem I have with Keynesian is that it really, really, really relies on the U.S. being a mega economic super power and I'm not sure how we can guarantee that in this global economy.

The other major economic 'philosophy' that I'm aware of is the Milton Friedman-esque free-market capitalism - which notably crashed every single economy that it was implemented in in South America. Whether it makes logical sense seems secondary to whether it has ever succeeded in reality.

Milton Friedman has some advice for our times....

[youtube]dT1AHDjzcsQ[/youtube]

[Tribble]

As far as I'm aware Keynesian economic policies were implemented in order to recover from the recession the USA experienced after WW2, and I guess it worked reasonably well.

Well, one could argue that it wasn't full on Keynesian policies implemented. America has always been a hybrid of several economic approaches. The bigger question is -- are those policies sustainable in the long run or is it ultimately a pyramid scheme which will eventually implode as our population ages? I don't know. But the biggest problem I have with Keynesian is that it really, really, really relies on the U.S. being a mega economic super power and I'm not sure how we can guarantee that in this global economy.

It's not a 'pyramid scheme.' Keynesian economics (primarily) rely on TWO factors to regulate the economy:

1. Manipulation of Interest rates.
2. When interest rate manipulation can no longer function, (zero lower-boundary effect) debt-financed public works to be repaid during times of surplus through taxation. Nothing pyramid about that.

Also, Keynesian economic models work just as well in tiny Iceland as they do in the huge US.

The other major economic 'philosophy' that I'm aware of is the Milton Friedman-esque free-market capitalism - which notably crashed every single economy that it was implemented in in South America. Whether it makes logical sense seems secondary to whether it has ever succeeded in reality.

I don't know a lot about this, but it certainly sets off my skeptical spidey senses. I have to ask, really? Was it really, truly and completely free market capitalism system implemented in South Africa or was there something more or nefarious going on there?

I think this objection is a talking point of the left to discount free markets, but in reality, I'm not sure a true Libertarian society has ever been created because it isn't anarchy, but small government. I call bullshit. I really don't think that Libertarianism has really been tested, which could be problematic in and of itself.

It was South America. Not South Africa. And the point is true. Friedman (and the Gang of Eight) got free reign to impliment their economic ideologies and destroyed Chile's economy. Their complete failure is one of the reasons I got away from the economic fairy-tales of my youth.

In March 1975, the Chicago boys held an economic seminar that received national media attention. Here they proposed a radical austerity program — "shock treatment," they called it — to solve Chile's economic woes. They invited some of the world's top economists to speak at the conference, among them Chicago professors Milton Friedman and Arnold Harberger. Unsurprisingly, they gave the proposal their highest praise. The plan called for a drastic reduction in the money supply and government spending, the privatization of government services, massive deregulation of the market, and the liberalization of international trade

In 1973, the year General Pinochet brutally seized the government, Chile's unemployment rate was 4.3%. In 1983, after ten years of free-market modernization, unemployment reached 22%. Real wages declined by 40% under military rule. In 1970, 20% of Chile's population lived in poverty. By 1990, the year "President" Pinochet left office, the number of destitute had doubled to 40%. Quite a miracle. After nine years of economics Chicago style, Chile's industry keeled over and died. In 1982 and 1983, GDP dropped 19%

Between 1972 and 1987, the GNP per capita fell 6.4 percent. (13) In constant 1993 dollars, Chile's per capita GDP was over $3,600 in 1973. Even as late as 1993, however, this had recovered to only $3,170. (14) Only five Latin American countries did worse in per capita GDP during the Pinochet era (1974-1989).

The results were exactly what liberals predicted. Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America, alternately experiencing deep plunges and soaring growth. Once all this erratic behavior was averaged out, however, Chile's growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America.

That's a lot of Chutzpah. Destroy a countries economy. Turn it into a toxic cesspool. Make a Gilded Age. Plunge the economy into repeated boom-bust cycles as well as chronic unemployment and poverty. Then lie about your results (after getting fired) and declare victory. And, FWIW, most of the other countries in the South American region did remarkably well without the 'Chile economic miracle' help over that time so it wasn't a 'regional problem.'

Now, here's the kicker. After Chile went to hell in the late 1980s and Pinochet finally kicked Friedman and Laffer the rest of the Gang of Eight the fuck out of there, he brought in some Keynesian economists to fix Chile. They reversed all of the Gang of Eight's 'reforms' (to the extent they could). So, the banking system (deregulated and in bankruptcy) was nationalized as were many other industries (many of which were also in bankruptcy) all of which (except copper) were eventually re-privatized at a profit (kind of like GM). Further, the government started a large hiring program (500,000) and instituted many other "Keynesian" fixes (unions, minimum wage, social programs, etc.). These stabilized the country and set it on the path to recovery.

A second kicker is that Allende (the Marxist Pinochet over-threw) had instituted land reform by breaking up those huge feudal estates that were terribly non-productive and putting the land in the hands of small farmers and cooperatives (but leaving out Soviet central planning). Pinochet couldn't undo all of that and now, because of that, Chile is also an agricultural power-house in the region instead of just a copper-exporting powerhouse.

And, lo and behold, Chile recovered. It took a HELL OF A LONG TIME, but now not only are they still a copper-exporting powerhouse, but they are an agricultural powerhouse as well. Marxists and Keynesians to the rescue. Not Libertarians.

As for 'Libertarianism has never been implemented,' yes, I've heard that BS argument before. The communists say the same thing for the same reasons -- they fail in the real world.

The thing is, Libertarianism and Communism are both ideological extremes in the economic continuum. The failure of one doesn't make the other 'correct.'

Both extremes, in fact, don't work because HUMANS don't behave in the ways those academic theories need humans to act for those systems to work. I'm sure if we were robots, all programmed to be non-hierarchical and non-striving and fair and generous in the same general way, they'd work. But we're not. We compete. We have different levels of ability and desire. We play 'winners and losers' and 'power and privilege.' And both systems exaggerate the worst parts of the human condition by allowing them to run unfettered to their extremes.

Here's a rebuttal to the claim that free markets screwed over South Africa from the Cato Institute: http://www.cato.org/publications/commen ... capitalism

I know the Skeptical Libertarian has called it out rather recently for being false as well, but I'd have to search for his response.

Personally, I wouldn't trust anything the Cato Institute wrote about economics. Africa is the pit of shit it is today in great part because of 'unregulated free market economics.' Free markets have consequences to those unprotected by strong central governments. You only need to look at the gilded age here in America to see these consequences. Never mind going to Africa.

But Cato doesn't like that. So they ignore it. Which is SOP for ALL of the 'think tanks' in Washington. They're (as a group) POV to the donor audience, not broad-based for pragmatic, non-ideological solutions or analysis. In short, it's pretty much excuses and preaching to the choir.

As an aside, I'm really not a lock step Libertarian because I actually think the government provides some invaluable services and does them better than the private sector, it's just if I had to choose or be whipped, I would say that I'm Libertarian in principle just because austerity fits better with my world view, but ultimately, I think economies and governments work the best with a mixture of economic philosophies. What works in one area, may not be the best in another area. What works in one situation, may not work in another.

There's some sense. Because the Austerity philosophy has caused more depressions outside of Marxist-Socialism than any other economic theory used in the past 100 years. if you contract government spending in a down-turn, you just make it worse. And it sets up a vicious, repeating cycle.

Not only do you have Chile as an example of this kind of economic thinking destroying economies, you have other South American economies wrecked by that philosophy in the 1980s and 1990s. You also have current examples of Greece, Spain, etc., that have been all but destroyed as economic zones because of Austerity.

Sure, it's good for the PERSON and good for the FAMILY. And it 'feels good' from a personal responsibility standpoint. But it's bad for economies that are in trouble.

[John D]

ps. oh, and FFS, can dumb-asses please stop going "complaining about realism in fantasy is STOPID lolololo!!!". It's about plausibility and breaking immersion, and fucking those things up is the hallmark of a bad storyteller (or artist, or game designer, or w/e). I don't read comics, but fuck if I'd ever say it's stupid to complain about bad artists getting anatomy wrong. You don't paint a guy with two left hands and a woman with three legs and then go "Oh but he can fly and she shoots lasers from her eyes, so who cares about realism like that?!".
Being a shitty artist isn't more ok just because you're drawing Superman instead of Modesty Blaise.

I agree. The art depicted of this super twisty spider-girl is a fail in my opinion. I am not what you would call a fan-boy of comics, but I read a fair share. There is a line between what looks heroic and awesome and what looks stupid and over-worked. This spider-girl art is not getting it for me... and I suspect the artist will learn to do better next time. It is obvious that they are trying to get every sexualized curve into on image...but... they have created a bizarre freaky looking thing. Just my opinion of course.

[Gefan]

Milton Friedman has some advice for our times....

[youtube]dT1AHDjzcsQ[/youtube]

Mentioned because I loves me some Stanhope and because it is an extremely happy memory (and I am in sore need of those right now):
We were at the recording of that show in downtown Salt Lake City.
Although she does Belly Dance (and burlesque) my SO laughed loudly at the "Belly Dance bit" and didn't run out of the room crying.
This is possibly because she is a fucking adult with a sense of humor and no impression that the universe should revolve around her emotional comfort.

Coin flip between Stanhope and Jim Jefferies for "Best Stand-Up Alive".

[Scented Nectar]

I must interrupt your regularly scheduled programming debates for the following Public Service Announcement:

http://www.scentednectar.com/slimepit/MNET-00.png

[FrankGrimes]

Just dropping this off for anyone that might be interested. I hadn't seen it but it's very interesting, to me at least:

[youtube]FL1TZQIJgf4[/youtube]

[Suet Cardigan]

ps. oh, and FFS, can dumb-asses please stop going "complaining about realism in fantasy is STOPID lolololo!!!". It's about plausibility and breaking immersion, and fucking those things up is the hallmark of a bad storyteller (or artist, or game designer, or w/e). I don't read comics, but fuck if I'd ever say it's stupid to complain about bad artists getting anatomy wrong. You don't paint a guy with two left hands and a woman with three legs and then go "Oh but he can fly and she shoots lasers from her eyes, so who cares about realism like that?!".
Being a shitty artist isn't more ok just because you're drawing Superman instead of Modesty Blaise.

I agree. The art depicted of this super twisty spider-girl is a fail in my opinion. I am not what you would call a fan-boy of comics, but I read a fair share. There is a line between what looks heroic and awesome and what looks stupid and over-worked. This spider-girl art is not getting it for me... and I suspect the artist will learn to do better next time. It is obvious that they are trying to get every sexualized curve into on image...but... they have created a bizarre freaky looking thing. Just my opinion of course.

Rob Liefeld is the master of unrealistic figure drawing. Look at this lady and wonder why she hasn't snapped in half like a twig:

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1070346/40_medium.gif

[welch]

I'm left of center and read there all the time. There are times the political ideology and ignorance of how things work outside his realm of experience and economic fairy-tales and I'll rip him. But I find it's better to have one's mind challenged by people with different underlying views than cultivate the echo chamber and remain intellectually myopic because I might read something that 'offends' me.

Totes.

As someone who leans right of center Libertarian, I regularly read several lefty sites including Mother Jones, Andrew Sullivan, DailyKos, the New Yorker and a few others. I especially find more left wing journalism to be way more in line with my views on skepticism and science. I really can't think of any lefty economics blogs though that I can read without rolling my eyes out of their sockets, but I was recently on keynesian economics research kick, trying to find out more about it. While I went into with negative preconceived notions, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that its economic philosophy was rooted in some real logic. While I don't agree with it and find some elements particularly problematic, I can definitely see why some economists would think it would work. I mean, I suppose it can, but parts of it seem rather idealistic.

But yeah, I agree with you. I personally love skepticism because it constantly challenges me to be objective even in situations where I know I'm biased. While I can't always shed my bias, skepticism helps me to at least try.

Honestly, I think all economic theory has a lot of idealism in it. The "Free Market as Magic Spell" types think that somehow, vicious cutthroat competition is the natural state of unregulated markets in spite of history showing how wrong that is. Same thing with the others. There's always a sense of 'then a miracle happens wherein human nature completely changes' in them, because they seem to not want to admit that people are complex fuckers with a tendency towards lazy.

[welch]

As far as I'm aware Keynesian economic policies were implemented in order to recover from the recession the USA experienced after WW2, and I guess it worked reasonably well.

Well, one could argue that it wasn't full on Keynesian policies implemented. America has always been a hybrid of several economic approaches. The bigger question is -- are those policies sustainable in the long run or is it ultimately a pyramid scheme which will eventually implode as our population ages? I don't know. But the biggest problem I have with Keynesian is that it really, really, really relies on the U.S. being a mega economic super power and I'm not sure how we can guarantee that in this global economy.

The other major economic 'philosophy' that I'm aware of is the Milton Friedman-esque free-market capitalism - which notably crashed every single economy that it was implemented in in South America. Whether it makes logical sense seems secondary to whether it has ever succeeded in reality.

I don't know a lot about this, but it certainly sets off my skeptical spidey senses. I have to ask, really? Was it really, truly and completely free market capitalism system implemented in South Africa or was there something more or nefarious going on there?

I think this objection is a talking point of the left to discount free markets, but in reality, I'm not sure a true Libertarian society has ever been created because it isn't anarchy, but small government. I call bullshit. I really don't think that Libertarianism has really been tested, which could be problematic in and of itself.

Here's a rebuttal to the claim that free markets screwed over South Africa from the Cato Institute: http://www.cato.org/publications/commen ... capitalism

I know the Skeptical Libertarian has called it out rather recently for being false as well, but I'd have to search for his response.

As an aside, I'm really not a lock step Libertarian because I actually think the government provides some invaluable services and does them better than the private sector, it's just if I had to choose or be whipped, I would say that I'm Libertarian in principle just because austerity fits better with my world view, but ultimately, I think economies and governments work the best with a mixture of economic philosophies. What works in one area, may not be the best in another area. What works in one situation, may not work in another.

I gave up on Libertarianism, because I put all the quotes about who isn't a 'real' Libertarian, and realized that no one is. It is actually impossible to be a 'real' libertarian.

[welch]

It's unusual based on the bars and parties I've been to.

Then you've led a sheltered life. Not even being smarmy. YOu've literally been sheltered from the shit that goes on when copious amounts of booze are involved. That account is kind of tame.

No I've been in social situations involving copious amounts of booze many many times. I could see that kind of behavior being normal for high schoolers or college freshmen or something, but not beyond that. Perhaps I've just ran with the right crowds.

Which would mean you've been sheltered from it in some way. Fuck dude, I didn't say it was a bad thing. I could have happily done without many of the situations I was in, but where I grew up and how I grew up, it was going to happen. I have seen all kinds of over the top crap happening with people WELL out of college freshman age, including one guy I knew who had a fucking "road wife". He was a computer consultant. Please don't ask me to explain how that happened or worked, i have no idea other than it was a thing that happened.

And i'm pretty sure compared to other people *I* have led a sheltered life, just on the party scene alone. post college even.

Really, everything is not someone saying you're a shitty person or something.

[welch]

I just corrected welch on this, do I really have to do it again? It was not a goal post shift because I never made a legal argument in the first place. Go ahead and think the courts are "the ultimate arbitrator" if you want. I'll still think it's wrong to raid someone's house in the middle of the night under drug suspicion (legal) and not wrong to speed or smoke pot (illegal).

Again, it's really dumb and immature to bring up a previous argument in response to an unrelated one. You could have just responded to my last post on that subject instead if it's what you wanted to talk about.

If by "correcting me" you mean "justified why whatever i say is whatever I meant, even though it's different than what I said earlier, so I win because neener-neener" then you most certainly did.

Okay, quote it then.

Yeah, you're one of them. Doesn't count unless it was perfectly quoted, and if a comma's out of place, doesn't count. Aka the Dave Chappelle R. Kelly standard of proof. Funny, given how you take other people to task about being hyperskeptical, you sure as hell do it when it suits you.

I'm willing to bet you don't actually see where Marc Antony is reaming Brutus in his famous speech, since he never actually says anything specifically bad about Brutus.

[welch]

Ophie....
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... le-rootle/

In the comments of Ophie's previous blog post,

Bjarte Foshaug, the artist responsible for this...
http://i.imgur.com/87PmVst.png

...describes the following image as "gross"...
http://www.geeksaresexy.net/wp-content/ ... iative.jpg

In particular, Bjarte quotes Ophie quoting Bjarte quoting Holbo quoting Alberti (all of which Ophie subsequently quoted Mayhew quoting).

But what did Alberti actually say in his initial quote? He said "making the chest and the small of the back visible at once in the same figure, an impossible and inappropriate thing".

Well, sheeit: I see the chest and the lower back at the same time in both images above!

It's a special kind of moron that looks at a superhero cartoon and critiques its lack of strict adherence to human anatomical limitations.

"YES this character can shoot lightning from her arsehole, YES this character has a magic tampon which can slow time when the cord is pulled. But there is NO way she could ever turn her body in the manner depicted."

Fuck me, comic fans really are the turds floating on humanity's lake.

I agree. I think when you're talking about Spider-Man and the Hulk, bitching about "realism" is kind of stupid. Especially if you're talking about artists like Bill Sienkiewicz, who is anything but a realist. (He is one of my favorite artists though.) I think it's fair to talk about some of them when they get just ridiculous with it. Liefeld is the worst, and the pseudo-cult that popped up around his "style" is one reason why i don't really read comics anymore. His artwork is just...shit, and his attempts at writing are not much better. The fact that so many people copy him doesn't help.

[welch]

I interpreted "this" as a reference to my post, since that is what "Guest" was responding to. I didn't say shit about women and Greg Laden has nothing to do with me.

Calm your tits FFS..

I was the guest that directed that at you and I was saying the shit you are spouting is the stock feminist line regardless of what you think you are saying.

Good. My interpretation was correct.

See welch, I was saying s/he pulled that shit out of his ass because s/he was saying that is what I was saying. You interpreted it as if I was defending people such as Greg Laden.

(not even going to respond to the "you aren't saying what you think you're saying, you're saying what I've decided you're saying" drivel)

Oh bless your heart honey.

[welch]

Sullivan's self-description as a Thatcher-Reagan conservative rings true to me. He identifies most closely with Oakeshott as a political philosopher but, as I have never read Oakeshott I cannot speak to that.
It is American conservatism that has changed much more than Sullivan.
To paraphrase Reagan; "Andrew Sullivan didn't leave conservatism. Conservatism left Andrew Sullivan".
To wit, imagine Reagan trying to win the GOP nomination today. Voted multiple times for tax increases. Campaigned against an initiative to ban gays from teaching in the public schools (back in the 1970s when it took immense political courage to do that - not like Obama's showing up after the battle was largely won on marriage equality). Signed no-fault divorce into law when Governor of California.
They'd rip him to bits.
Thatcher was a supporter of a national healthcare system and increased spending on it in her time in office. According to Mark Levin that made a socialist. She extended a hand to Gorbachev and strongly opposed the invasion of Grenada.
Sullivan's a throwback to when conservatism in America was a serious governing philosophy and not an hysterical primal scream of tribal resentment.

I think at this point I'd be a republican if we're talking about the 1950s or so, i.e. eisenhower. Nowadays? I may as well go hug trees, I can't even guess where I fit in. Somewhere to the left of che?

[welch]

Sullivan's self-description as a Thatcher-Reagan conservative rings true to me. He identifies most closely with Oakeshott as a political philosopher but, as I have never read Oakeshott I cannot speak to that.
It is American conservatism that has changed much more than Sullivan.
To paraphrase Reagan; "Andrew Sullivan didn't leave conservatism. Conservatism left Andrew Sullivan".
To wit, imagine Reagan trying to win the GOP nomination today. Voted multiple times for tax increases. Campaigned against an initiative to ban gays from teaching in the public schools (back in the 1970s when it took immense political courage to do that - not like Obama's showing up after the battle was largely won on marriage equality). Signed no-fault divorce into law when Governor of California.
They'd rip him to bits.
Thatcher was a supporter of a national healthcare system and increased spending on it in her time in office. According to Mark Levin that made a socialist. She extended a hand to Gorbachev and strongly opposed the invasion of Grenada.
Sullivan's a throwback to when conservatism in America was a serious governing philosophy and not an hysterical primal scream of tribal resentment.

I think at this point I'd be a republican if we're talking about the 1950s or so, i.e. eisenhower. Nowadays? I may as well go hug trees, I can't even guess where I fit in. Somewhere to the left of che?

[Southern]

From Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles:

Result of query on Sunday, October 13, 2013 07:34:15 PM
Last Name: SHERMER
First Name: MICHAEL
Filing Date Range: 06/01/2013-10/13/2013


No records were found matching the information you provided.

It is never going to happen. Shermer has gotten as much from the threat as he ever would from the fact, and having the threat around indefinitely might make the arseholes think, well, not twice, but maybe one and a half times, about repeating the slur.

If he's not going to sue, Shermer has the moral obligation of returning every penny that was donated to his "legal fund". Every single one of them. No "I'll just donate to charity" bullshit. Because that wasn't what the money was raised (with his consent, no less) for. If he doesn't follow through and don't return the money, he'll be on the same boat as The Amazing Atheist, Brett Keane, and other atheist-ebeggers assholes.

[welch]

In the comments of Ophie's previous blog post,

Bjarte Foshaug, the artist responsible for this...
http://i.imgur.com/87PmVst.png

...describes the following image as "gross"...
http://www.geeksaresexy.net/wp-content/ ... iative.jpg

In particular, Bjarte quotes Ophie quoting Bjarte quoting Holbo quoting Alberti (all of which Ophie subsequently quoted Mayhew quoting).

But what did Alberti actually say in his initial quote? He said "making the chest and the small of the back visible at once in the same figure, an impossible and inappropriate thing".

Well, sheeit: I see the chest and the lower back at the same time in both images above!

http://cdn.trendhunterstatic.com/phpthu ... 1_600.jpeg

Granted that she's using the floor to twist further than she otherwise could--pretty close. I wish we had a view from her back, though I don't think it necessary for comparison.

Of course the good and the just would probably whine about this, too, but that's just who they are.

Sure, it's stupid to complain about superhero poses, I wouldn't want to deny that. They're still showing their ignorance about human possibilities, apart from that.

Say, are we spine-shaming now? Maybe we need to call the SJWs and ask.

In other news, Steffy is begging for money, and Avicenna is saying something against Thunderf00t (not sure what, couldn't waste the minutes it would take to read his drivel). Ophie finds rape culture where most of us would find a kid connected to a politician gets out of trouble. Not sure about the rest of the article, but going to the "house they used to live in was burned down in mysterious circumstances) to suggest the townspeople burned it down in retaliation for reporting the rapes is a bit much (so far, it could change if I ever think it's worth looking into).

I read the article on the Missouri thing, it's pretty fucked up, and yeah, I think there were a lot of shenanigans going on there. In any event, the girls involved didn't deserve the shit they got from it.

But I don't think it's rape culture, that's too simple. I think it's more...power culture? I mean, the parallels to Stuebenville are not small and we see the same kind of thing over and over. But I think it's not about rape. It's about the desire to preserve the "elevated status" concept. That there's a point where someone can be, at least somewhat, outside or above the law due to wealth or connections.

Why would you want to preserve that? I mean it seems kind of fucked up, right?

Well, if you're not in that status, but you want to be some day, and suddenly someone comes along and fucks it all up, where's that leave you? The brass ring is gone, and you're just on a shitty carnival ride. I've read a few things about this, but they're more centered on why people who are poor as fuck will do whatever it takes to ensure they, not rich people pay more (in terms of proportion and in some cases, actual dollar amount) in taxes. Why? Because they think one day, THEY will be Mitt Romney or similar and by god, they want that great life of no taxes and servants and the like.

When someone's say, 18 or so, you can understand it. But when someone's in their 70s and living on Social Security and medicaid, that shit's not happening. But you see it a lot. People want there to be some special class that doesn't have to play by the rules, because there's always some chance that one day, they could be in that class, no matter how much reality shows it ain't happening.

[Southern]

In TWO YEARS they can't even begin to fix it? WTF happened to all the amazing speed and efficiency of Open Source. (I already know. UI is actually really fucking hard, boring, and you have to think about other people. So don't hold your breath.)

What do you find so broken about the LibreOffice UI? Both the text editor and the spreadsheet components suit me just fine (I don't use the others because if you still do presentations on PPT instead of Reveal.js, you're doing it wrong), better than that Word crap anyway. And MS has the guts to charge for Office these days - the thing doesn't even save a document as a PDF by default.

[welch]

It took a while, but it finally got through his skull that he was a member of a party that would legislate him out of existence if they could get away with it. If he wasn't gay, I think he might still be warning about fifth columnists in our midst instead of complaining about imperial overreach.

It kind of makes you wonder about the membership of GOProud doesn't it?
Dan Savage referred to them as a; "bunch of Quislings and useful idiots" and that probably covers a fair few of them but I can't help thinking there has to be someone acting out of self-loathing / masochism at work too.

"If we just didn't make them hate us, they'd give us a seat at the adult table."

[welch]

It took a while, but it finally got through his skull that he was a member of a party that would legislate him out of existence if they could get away with it. If he wasn't gay, I think he might still be warning about fifth columnists in our midst instead of complaining about imperial overreach.

It kind of makes you wonder about the membership of GOProud doesn't it?
Dan Savage referred to them as a; "bunch of Quislings and useful idiots" and that probably covers a fair few of them but I can't help thinking there has to be someone acting out of self-loathing / masochism at work too.

I tend to disagree.

I view individuals who join groups like GOProud as acting in their own personal best interests.
They spot a niche in the political environment and exploit it.
What I mean is that these people realize there is a certain kind of limited tolerence within the conservative political family and they exist within the confines of this toleration.
While there is a hostility to homosexuality within conservatism, this is mainly skin deep. The same thing could be said about atheism - there are plenty of non religious conservatives - they just tend to avoid being seen as promoting the atheist worldview in competition with that of the religious one.
There are very few places in the western world where the trend is for less toleration of homosexuality (perhaps Russia is the exception)
Smart Republicans will realize that showing a kind of public toleration for homosexuals is only going to play as an advantage in the political long term (seeing as younger people, both conservatives and liberals, show far more toleration than older generations and will only be turned off by obvious bigotry.)

So this creates a space for out homosexuals within the conservative movement - a niche that GOProud seeks to fill.

Um...no, the hostility towards homosexuals in the modern conservative movement is not skin deep. It's to the fucking bone in the current ruling group.

[Gefan]

Just dropping this off for anyone that might be interested. I hadn't seen it but it's very interesting, to me at least:

[youtube]FL1TZQIJgf4[/youtube]

Thank you greatly for the post.
I have it playing right now in another window - just coming up to 35 minutes in.
Thus far, as long as Buckley and Hitchens are talking it sound like a symphony of erudition. That's possibly because of the depths to which televised debate has sunk nowadays and probably helped by the fact that the Norm Macdonald impersonator who's occupying the other chair (to no clear purpose) is such a clown that he is not even aware of how out of his depth he is.
Buckley, by this point had physically evolved into a kind of feline muppet. He's such a caricature of himself that I'm occasionally wondering how and by who he's being operated off-screen. Nonetheless, you're clearly still dealing with a formidable depth and breadth of learning.
Where he's strikingly different from Hitchens in terms of style and substance is that within the first seven minutes he's resorting to "Yes, but the Democrats did it too". Hitchens, being attached to principles rather than party or point-scoring simply responds that if he said that the (then) government of Poland was a Communist dictatorship and that Buckley replied that so were those of Czechoslovakia and East Germany what exactly would be Buckley's point?
Beautiful.
Hitch, even back then, was strikingly un-tempted by rhetorical slight of hand.
Regarding Hitchens' defense of the "women's movement" (his words), I don't know that he says anything that most people here wouldn't support.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

*scroll, scroll, scroll* <IT stuff>
*scroll, scroll, scroll* <Politics>
*scroll, scroll, scroll* <Justine vs. Joe>
*scroll, scroll, scroll* <Myers acting like an arse again> Ah, BINGO!

Carry on...

[Walter Ego]

As someone who has a degree in, and spent 15 years as a commercial software programmer,

I don't even disagree with welch on that one but I can't help but highlight your argument from authority. Now lets get to comparing who has the biggest one.

Fucking tech geeks. STFU You're boring everyone.

[Zenspace]

If he's not going to sue, Shermer has the moral obligation of returning every penny that was donated to his "legal fund". Every single one of them. No "I'll just donate to charity" bullshit. Because that wasn't what the money was raised (with his consent, no less) for. If he doesn't follow through and don't return the money, he'll be on the same boat as The Amazing Atheist, Brett Keane, and other atheist-ebeggers assholes.

Shermer has nothing to do with the solicitation or collection of the Legal Fund. He did acknowledge its presence and took pains to remain separate from it, which was wise. See here:

"People are asking me about this legal fund set up in my name, if I am aware of it, if it is legit, should they donate?, etc. For the record: I am aware of and completely support this legal fund and deeply appreciate Emery for setting it up and for the people who have donated thus far. I made it clear to Emery when he set it up that the money goes into an account that I have no access to, that my legal bills will be paid out of the fund directly to the law firm representing me, and that if there is any money left over after the case is finished that it be donated by Emery to a nonprofit organization of his choice. If anyone would like to email me directly for confirmation of the above, my email is mshermer@skeptic.com, which is posted on our web page http://www.skeptic.com. My reputation is all I have. I did nothing wrong--legally or morally--and I intend to defend myself and prosecute Myers until he issues a retraction and apology, as stated by my attorney."

--Michael Shermer

Link: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/micha ... legal-fund

Scroll to Update #2

Further, it was made clear from the outset by Emery Emery what would happen with the funds if not used for Schermer's legal expenses:

My name is Emery Emery and I am launching this fund raising effort for two reasons.
1. As a show of public support for Michael Shermer.
2. To help alleviate the expenses associated with Michael's effort to defend his name.

I do not know Michael Shermer personally and he has no idea I am setting up this fund raiser. I will be making sure that all money donated will go directly to his legal team and not to him personally.

If any funds are raised beyond Mr. Shermer's legal expenses it will be used to promote skepticism and science.

The way that money will be donated will be put to a vote of the donors themselves via email.

As a contributor, I read Emery's post carefully and decided to participate. Either outcome would be satisfactory to me, although leaving a smoking legal crater where FftB used to be would be my cathartic preference. :mrgreen:

[Zenspace]

*scroll, scroll, scroll* <IT stuff>
*scroll, scroll, scroll* <Politics>
*scroll, scroll, scroll* <Justine vs. Joe>
*scroll, scroll, scroll* <Myers acting like an arse again> Ah, BINGO!

Carry on...

Ditto that. My scroll finger is worn out!

Thanks to Skep Tickle on the Shermer update, though. Worth checking in just for that.

[Suet Cardigan]

FTB blogger Ally Fogg argues in favor of censorship in the Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... f-comments

His previous article complained about atheists being censored at the LSE:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... n-religion

Is he contracting the FTB disease and adopting double standards as the default?

[Walter Ego]

Keep Peezus thinking that the court case is about to be started, but in fact never start the legal proceedings - the advantage here is that it cuts out the risk of losing the case, both in terms of publicity and money, and also it may create a degree of caution in Peezus' future writing about Shermer. If Peezus thinks a case is always around the corner he may be careful about avoiding giving Shermer additional evidence of malice.

Yeah, that's the ticket. Keep the pudgy little toad squirming on hook as long as possible. A good lawyer can keep a case like this going on for years.

[Git]

As someone who has a degree in, and spent 15 years as a commercial software programmer,

I don't even disagree with welch on that one but I can't help but highlight your argument from authority. Now lets get to comparing who has the biggest one.

Argument from experience more than argument from authority. I feel there's a difference.

[FrankGrimes]

Just dropping this off for anyone that might be interested. I hadn't seen it but it's very interesting, to me at least:

[youtube]FL1TZQIJgf4[/youtube]

Thank you greatly for the post.
I have it playing right now in another window - just coming up to 35 minutes in.
Thus far, as long as Buckley and Hitchens are talking it sound like a symphony of erudition. That's possibly because of the depths to which televised debate has sunk nowadays and probably helped by the fact that the Norm Macdonald impersonator who's occupying the other chair (to no clear purpose) is such a clown that he is not even aware of how out of his depth he is.
Buckley, by this point had physically evolved into a kind of feline muppet. He's such a caricature of himself that I'm occasionally wondering how and by who he's being operated off-screen. Nonetheless, you're clearly still dealing with a formidable depth and breadth of learning.
Where he's strikingly different from Hitchens in terms of style and substance is that within the first seven minutes he's resorting to "Yes, but the Democrats did it too". Hitchens, being attached to principles rather than party or point-scoring simply responds that if he said that the (then) government of Poland was a Communist dictatorship and that Buckley replied that so were those of Czechoslovakia and East Germany what exactly would be Buckley's point?
Beautiful.
Hitch, even back then, was strikingly un-tempted by rhetorical slight of hand.
Regarding Hitchens' defense of the "women's movement" (his words), I don't know that he says anything that most people here wouldn't support.

No problem. I found it on a website that was using it as an allusion to the current situation in the US. The first few minutes seemed relevant.

My chill girl fiance (her chill girl status is confirmed after she gave me her opinion on the 'my boss raped me' story/discussw) and I watched it together and both thought the last part about civil right was the most interesting. Hitchens absolutely wiped the floor with both of them.

And as far as the 'women's movement' bit, yes, I agree. Would be nice if the new feminazis could view it with an open mind. They might learn something.

[Zenspace]

And I also believe this has mostly died out and PZ Lyers has gotten away with it, if only because of court costs as well as possible "truth is ultimate defense" defense showing PZ did receive as he claims emails to that effect.

This would be annoying, but typical.

That would be unfortunate, because a personality like Myer's doesn't just go away when it hasn't been quelled. It's kind of like malaria. It will be back, and probably more virulent form than before.

Probably true, but it doesn't take into account the external (apparent) reality that Peezus' circle of influence continuing to shrink. As I've mentioned before, I am increasingly of the mind that Shermer is playing the long game here. The C&D letter made it very clear to Peezus that he has a very real legal gun pointed right at him, all he has to do is squeak loud enough to make it worthwhile for Shermer to pull the trigger.

The real point, and Peezus must be aware of it at this point, is that he is becoming less relevant and respected in his former community every day. Shermer knows this, too. There was an inital big flash, but look how quickly it became 'not news' in the community. I think as time passes and Shermer guages the utter lack of impact on his career, the less likely an actual suite will be started. Ultimately, it caused more damage to Peezus' career and reputation than Shermer's.

Sure, I'd love the drama of watching Peezus/FftB getting legally cratered, but as a strategist playing the long game, it looks more and more to me that Shermer's (mostly) ignoring of Peezus is the smarter move.

[katamari Damassi]

It took a while, but it finally got through his skull that he was a member of a party that would legislate him out of existence if they could get away with it. If he wasn't gay, I think he might still be warning about fifth columnists in our midst instead of complaining about imperial overreach.

It kind of makes you wonder about the membership of GOProud doesn't it?
Dan Savage referred to them as a; "bunch of Quislings and useful idiots" and that probably covers a fair few of them but I can't help thinking there has to be someone acting out of self-loathing / masochism at work too.

I can't remember who coined it, but I will always think of Sullivan as Little Roy Cohn.

[Service Dog]

Rebecca Watson has published a guest post by DN Lee, who airs a grievance against a blog editor. The post ends with:

"I appreciate your support, words of encouragement, and offers to ride down on his *$$."

In American history, the term 'riding down' refers to racist whites on horseback trampling a fleeing black.

DN Lee hyperlinked 'riding down' to the following link, featuring a white man gathering-up a twitter-posse
and a woman taking off her earrings to brawl:


Where's Rebecca Watson's famed concern for organized online threats of violence?

DN Lee's grievance is that an editor named Ofek asked "are you an urban scientist or an urban whore?" in response to her refusal to blog for free.

The obvious interpretation is that Ofek's comment was wildly inappropriate.
However, given DN Lee's subsequent use of stereotypical slang, perhaps Ofek was merely responding in Lee's own vernacular?
http://skepchick.org/2013/10/guest-post ... f-my-name/

I'd like to see the exchanges that preceded the "whore" comment.

[Jonathan]

Just a beautiful non-sequitur from Ellie Murasaki here.

I don't know whether to laugh or applaud.

[Southern]

As someone who has a degree in, and spent 15 years as a commercial software programmer,

I don't even disagree with welch on that one but I can't help but highlight your argument from authority. Now lets get to comparing who has the biggest one.

Fucking tech geeks. STFU You're boring everyone.

Please entertain us with another tale of your amazing daily life of pissing on sinks and betting on fights with cheap hotel managers, then.

[goddamn 'nym]

I think you need to pick better examples. LibreOffice was forked from OpenOffice in 2010. Most of its "shitty UI" was written by StarDivision/Oracle.

In TWO YEARS they can't even begin to fix it? WTF happened to all the amazing speed and efficiency of Open Source. (I already know. UI is actually really fucking hard, boring, and you have to think about other people. So don't hold your breath.)

Now you are just ridiculing people for no reason. "amazing speed and efficiency of Open Source", who claimed that?

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html

"A Stark Moral Choice"

The section in question discusses a personal choice for his career somewhere around the KT boundary. It does not back your claim that RMS argues that free software confers moral superiority (to whom anyway?).

As I thought. Let's make this easy. You tell me the words Stallman must use for my statement to be correct. He's ranted about the moral superiority of Free software for years, if not decades, but i've no interest in reading your mind. You put the words here. Then i"ll see if he actually said those precise words. It will make things easier on everyone.

Your original claim was: "It confers neither moral superiority nor inferiority no matter how many times RMS stamps his feet otherwise"

As far as I can tell he says that free software is better from a moral, ethical economical etc. perspective. I don't see where he claims this confers superiority on individuals.

You seem to have some sort of caricature in your mind where RMS is this one-issue clown that rants about free software all day and measures everyone based on whether they follow the cult of free software or not. I linked to his comments on Apple which show that contrary to what you claimed he doesn't trash companies for not writing free software. The reality is that he trashes Apple for specific restrictions it imposes on users. All of what I've seen on his site is specific criticism of consequences not the stupid broad generalizations that you ascribe to him. Maybe you need to search through Q&A sessions or similar where people say this kind of stuff in the heat of the moment.

I am not an FSF person. I linked to the FSF because you were confusing their definition of "free software" and your own and were asserting that their license is in conflict with their own ideals. If you insist that you actually knew that and were deliberately spinning this to make them look like hypocrites then please don't do that again in the future.

Their license is not free. It is not even close to free. It is highly restrictive and lays down specific terms that tell you what you cannot do with GPL'd software.

That's not free, that's "Free". The GPL is not about freedom in any sense other than what the people behind the GPL decide "freedom" is. If they don't like something, then they modify the GPL to ban the use of GPL'd software in that instance.

It's not significantly different then the way the Soviet Leaders meant "freedom": "you're free to act in the way we require and do the things we allow".

That's why i point out the BSD license as a truly "free" license. The GPL simply is not, and therefore, their claims to supporting software freedom are crapola.

You disagree with the FSF's definition of "free", fine. I acknowledged this the first time.

Obviously the BSD license is not truly "free" under your definition since it imposes requirements on the user.
A "free" license under your definition is http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/

I am not sure I understand your issue with different versions of the GPL. You are free to use whichever you like. The BSD licenses comes in different versions too.

Ah, the GPLv2. Which is not the current version is it? No. No it is not. As well, nice way to misrepresent what Hubbard was trying to say.

Please go back to what he wrote. He wrote about the GPL scaring users away. GPLv3 is not widely in use so it is clearly not what he meant. My point was that even though his theoretical argument has merit the practice shows it to be irrelevant.

Oh and points for "i've not seen it so it's not there."

I didn't realize the point about Linux vs *BSD adoption among SoC vendors was going to be controversial. Otherwise I would have dropped it cause I am too lazy to go through dozens of webpages just to provide tons of links that state the obvious. Even if someone somewhere offers a *BSD port that doesn't negate the point that Linux is widely adopted despite the GPL.

As someone who has a degree in, and spent 15 years as a commercial software programmer,

I don't even disagree with welch on that one but I can't help but highlight your argument from authority. Now lets get to comparing who has the biggest one.

So he's not allow to point out the thing that gives him some vague form of expertise in the field?

The rest of his quote was: "I find myself violently agreeing with everything Welch has said on this subject. He is speaking sense, at least on this one."

If he agrees with everything you said then he agrees with a the whole collection of your cartoon character depictions of RMS that you produced here and have not backed up with actual quotes. His expertise does nothing to close that evidence gap.

[Southern]

If he's not going to sue, Shermer has the moral obligation of returning every penny that was donated to his "legal fund". Every single one of them. No "I'll just donate to charity" bullshit. Because that wasn't what the money was raised (with his consent, no less) for. If he doesn't follow through and don't return the money, he'll be on the same boat as The Amazing Atheist, Brett Keane, and other atheist-ebeggers assholes.

Shermer has nothing to do with the solicitation or collection of the Legal Fund. He did acknowledge its presence and took pains to remain separate from it, which was wise. See here:

"People are asking me about this legal fund set up in my name, if I am aware of it, if it is legit, should they donate?, etc. For the record: I am aware of and completely support this legal fund and deeply appreciate Emery for setting it up and for the people who have donated thus far. I made it clear to Emery when he set it up that the money goes into an account that I have no access to, that my legal bills will be paid out of the fund directly to the law firm representing me, and that if there is any money left over after the case is finished that it be donated by Emery to a nonprofit organization of his choice. If anyone would like to email me directly for confirmation of the above, my email is mshermer@skeptic.com, which is posted on our web page http://www.skeptic.com. My reputation is all I have. I did nothing wrong--legally or morally--and I intend to defend myself and prosecute Myers until he issues a retraction and apology, as stated by my attorney."

--Michael Shermer

Link: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/micha ... legal-fund

Scroll to Update #2

Further, it was made clear from the outset by Emery Emery what would happen with the funds if not used for Schermer's legal expenses:

My name is Emery Emery and I am launching this fund raising effort for two reasons.
1. As a show of public support for Michael Shermer.
2. To help alleviate the expenses associated with Michael's effort to defend his name.

I do not know Michael Shermer personally and he has no idea I am setting up this fund raiser. I will be making sure that all money donated will go directly to his legal team and not to him personally.

If any funds are raised beyond Mr. Shermer's legal expenses it will be used to promote skepticism and science.

The way that money will be donated will be put to a vote of the donors themselves via email.

As a contributor, I read Emery's post carefully and decided to participate. Either outcome would be satisfactory to me, although leaving a smoking legal crater where FftB used to be would be my cathartic preference. :mrgreen:

Oh, so that would makie the e-bagging more acceptable, that wasn't he the one starting it? So, lets say that I start a fund to send Justin Vacula to next WiS, and I make Justin aware of it, and he gives me green light to proceed with it; but he knows for sure that he's not going to it next year because of his schedule or because Caine threatened to throw a knife at him, is still ok for him to give me the green light to collect the money, even if he has no access to it?

[Tigzy]

Setar has a "problem" with someone calling the taliban "thugs"

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 517#p95297

Just right. After all, the Brits actually managed to eliminate the thuggee.

Because,of course,in SJW land they had invented the story in the first place as a kind of bad fairy tale.

:lol:

The Thugee are, according to Wiki, first mentioned in the History of Fīrūz Shāh, dated to around 1356 - a time when the nations that later comprised Britain had about as much interest in India as most people probably have about Walter Ego's Hotel Adventures.

But I want Setar to start pondering on the colonial powers' supression of Suttee in India. Colonial oppression vs women's rights is liable to confuse him so much, one can hope he ends up gibbering away while pooping in an adult diaper.

If he's not doing so already, of course.

[Tigzy]

Oops - missed the 'Great' before 'Britain' in my previous post.

Easily done, I know.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

But I want Setar to start pondering on the colonial powers' supression of Suttee in India. Colonial oppression vs women's rights is liable to confuse him so much, one can hope he ends up gibbering away while pooping in an adult diaper.

If he's not doing so already, of course.

Please don't insult other cultural practices!

(I knew it as Sati, never seen the "Suttee" form before. Sound's like "sautée". Yes, that was a bad joke).

[Tigzy]

Just a beautiful non-sequitur from Ellie Murasaki here.

I don't know whether to laugh or applaud.

This one, from qmartindale:

The key to me is the word seems to be most used to refe to violence used by people without privilige, although I have seen it used to refer to government agents.

And you've probably seen it as part of the phrase 'corporate thugs', qmartin, but you have a confirmation bias going on there, so kindly waddle off and have a wank while thinking about some poor people, or something.

[Guest]

Rebecca Watson has published a guest post by DN Lee, who airs a grievance against a blog editor. The post ends with:

"I appreciate your support, words of encouragement, and offers to ride down on his *$$."

In American history, the term 'riding down' refers to racist whites on horseback trampling a fleeing black.

DN Lee hyperlinked 'riding down' to the following link, featuring a white man gathering-up a twitter-posse
and a woman taking off her earrings to brawl:


Where's Rebecca Watson's famed concern for organized online threats of violence?

DN Lee's grievance is that an editor named Ofek asked "are you an urban scientist or an urban whore?" in response to her refusal to blog for free.

The obvious interpretation is that Ofek's comment was wildly inappropriate.
However, given DN Lee's subsequent use of stereotypical slang, perhaps Ofek was merely responding in Lee's own vernacular?
http://skepchick.org/2013/10/guest-post ... f-my-name/

I'd like to see the exchanges that preceded the "whore" comment.

Ofek was a new hire who has since been fired, and no, I cannot imagine anything that would justify his use of whore in that back and forth, not when he is representing a company and website he works for.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

"Attention whore" simily, maybe?

[Tigzy]

But I want Setar to start pondering on the colonial powers' supression of Suttee in India. Colonial oppression vs women's rights is liable to confuse him so much, one can hope he ends up gibbering away while pooping in an adult diaper.

If he's not doing so already, of course.

Please don't insult other cultural practices!

(I knew it as Sati, never seen the "Suttee" form before. Sound's like "sautée". Yes, that was a bad joke).

AFAIA, the French in India banned suttee before the British did.

In which case, your people have been insulting other cultural practices longer. So nyer.

In fact, the French have been insulting other cultural practices for ages, especially when it comes to other countries' cooking. Maybe they'd have been happier with Suttee if the widow had been dressed with a bit of garlic butter and fines herbes beforehand.

[Guest]

Not to get all FREEZE PEACH, but Amazon deciding what they want to sell and not stocking books on rape, incest, bestiality is not the same as a library not stocking classes of books and is not the same as the gov't forbidding speech.

If the clothing store I buy suits and dress shirts (yeah the Mens Warehouse) started selling tons of sex toys and sex costumes I would probably find a different clothing store to walk into to buy dress clothes at.

In today's world especially, Amazon not selling them does not even limit their sale terribly, and it doesn't even keep them off Kindle, it just keeps Amazon from profiting from them and distributing them themselves.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

In fact, the French have been insulting other cultural practices for ages, especially when it comes to other countries' cooking. Maybe they'd have been happier with Suttee if the widow had been dressed with a bit of garlic butter and fines herbes beforehand.

We're the best. Try the waitress, tip the frog legs. A morning snailed is a morning nailed*!








*That one doesn't make sense at all, does it? I just made it up.

[Lsuoma]

But I want Setar to start pondering on the colonial powers' supression of Suttee in India. Colonial oppression vs women's rights is liable to confuse him so much, one can hope he ends up gibbering away while pooping in an adult diaper.

If he's not doing so already, of course.

Please don't insult other cultural practices!

(I knew it as Sati, never seen the "Suttee" form before. Sound's like "sautée". Yes, that was a bad joke).

There was a pretty funny sketch on Goodness Gracious Me where Sooty was going to burn Sue.

[Suet Cardigan]

Famous quote about Suttee from Charles Napier:
"Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."

What a wicked colonialist. Completely insensitive to other people's cultures. Tsk.

[Lsuoma]

BTW, I started a special thread for people who want to talk IT stuff.

[Linus]

Then you've led a sheltered life. Not even being smarmy. YOu've literally been sheltered from the shit that goes on when copious amounts of booze are involved. That account is kind of tame.

No I've been in social situations involving copious amounts of booze many many times. I could see that kind of behavior being normal for high schoolers or college freshmen or something, but not beyond that. Perhaps I've just ran with the right crowds.

Which would mean you've been sheltered from it in some way. Fuck dude, I didn't say it was a bad thing. I could have happily done without many of the situations I was in, but where I grew up and how I grew up, it was going to happen. I have seen all kinds of over the top crap happening with people WELL out of college freshman age, including one guy I knew who had a fucking "road wife". He was a computer consultant. Please don't ask me to explain how that happened or worked, i have no idea other than it was a thing that happened.

And i'm pretty sure compared to other people *I* have led a sheltered life, just on the party scene alone. post college even.

I haven't been sheltered from social situations involving copious amounts of alcohol. I've been sheltered from certain types of people who behave in certain types of ways. Hence "perhaps I've just ran with the right crowds". I do know some alcoholics and problem drinkers, but I've avoided drinking with them for obvious reasons.

Really, everything is not someone saying you're a shitty person or something.

Lol, most responses to me seem to be, but I didn't take your post that way.

[Jonathan]

Forum time seems to be about eight minutes behind at the moment.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Micro-time-zone...

[katamari Damassi]

Ophie....
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... le-rootle/

In the comments of Ophie's previous blog post,

Bjarte Foshaug, the artist responsible for this...
http://i.imgur.com/87PmVst.png

...describes the following image as "gross"...
http://www.geeksaresexy.net/wp-content/ ... iative.jpg

In particular, Bjarte quotes Ophie quoting Bjarte quoting Holbo quoting Alberti (all of which Ophie subsequently quoted Mayhew quoting).

But what did Alberti actually say in his initial quote? He said "making the chest and the small of the back visible at once in the same figure, an impossible and inappropriate thing".

Well, sheeit: I see the chest and the lower back at the same time in both images above!

http://cdn.trendhunterstatic.com/phpthu ... 1_600.jpeg

Granted that she's using the floor to twist further than she otherwise could--pretty close. I wish we had a view from her back, though I don't think it necessary for comparison.

Of course the good and the just would probably whine about this, too, but that's just who they are.

Sure, it's stupid to complain about superhero poses, I wouldn't want to deny that. They're still showing their ignorance about human possibilities, apart from that.

I have to side with the pissed off geek girls on this one. Female characters in superhero comics have been consistently rendered terribly for a very long time, mostly because I think the artists are sexually frustrated guy geeks. I'm pretty sure I've told this story before, but many years ago my 5 or 6 year old nephew received a free X-men comic from Pizza Hut(I think) and he asked me to read it to him. I was appalled at the way the women characters were depicted. They were posed and drawn like pouty faced centerfold models even in the least appropriate situations, and of course the costumes are pretty much body paint.