Periodic Table of Swearing

[Steersman]

Post numbers & links were available in each header [Re: Periodic Table of Swearing] before too. You happen to notice whether many people used them? ….

That wasn't a dig at your idea... I just feel bad for all the demands we put on Lsuoma ;)

Ah, sorry about that chief. Rather difficult to read intent or who a “dig” is directed at without some hints. Although I expect I’m somewhat guilty of that at times myself ….

[Eucliwood]

The questions are whether those feelings are fucked and how badly.

Steersman, you could've saved time by telling me just how MY Feelings are fucked, like theirs.

[Tigzy]

I’ll be the first to agree that Ophelia has, to be charitable, some serious blind spots. But gratuitous and personal insults does tend to be counterproductive.

You mean, gratuitous and personal insults like 'Cabinboy Toothless Fuck'?

I’m a strong proponent of never being the first to use nuclear weapons ….

You might want to note that that insult of mine was a “second use”, if not in response to a provocation other than a first one. In which case, I figure the insult isn't "gratuitous", but bought and paid for well before delivery ….

Ah right. So if you didn't start it, then it's not counterproductive - right?

[BarnOwl]

Love us or loathe us - we did good. Though we may not get much public credit for undoing the baboon empire, we would not be where we are today were it not for the sustained efforts of the entire 'pit. I think you can all buy yourselves a well earned beer and have a few moments self-satisfied of smugness.

Once that's done, it's back to the grindstone. The job's only half done.

Deserves a repost.

Definitely. Maybe there's hope.

And Undoing the Baboon Empire would be a good name for a Best of the Slymepit compilation. Or for the next thread.

Just donated to Renee's Operation Smile fund. One video of a smiling child after she or he has had the cleft lip corrective surgery is worth the entire Fluevog stock and then some. Here's one:

[youtube]odxzGDCQA9U[/youtube]

[SPACKlick]

Since we're discussing it:

* Assuming that 2% of reported rapes are false and a 10% reporting rate, the graphic assumes that 2 of 1000 rapes are falsely reported (assuming a rape can’t be falsely reported unless it’s reported in the first place)

I'm not trying to be facetious, and ignoring that the 2% and 10% figures are just plucked out of thin air

These figures tend to come from studies where a cop/ex cop/investigator looks into rape claims made to police and sees how many are determinably false from the evidence. As I say, I've seen numbers from 1/369 to about 15%.

but wouldn't it be proper to take into account falsely unreported rape? If they conceed that 2% of people are willing to make a false allegation to law-enforcement, you can not assume that no-one would falsely report to a non law-enforcement body (which is where I assume the unreported stats come from)...

Absolutely. I know people who claim rape to their friends about cases which at the time they said "Uh Oh, really shouldn't have taken HIM home." and passed it off as errors of youth. I'm sure if you asked one of them now, they'd be sure it WAS a rape even though it was never like that at the time.

[justinvacula]

Quick response to Zvan's blog post responding to my "Professional Victim Melody Hensley" video:

(her post, frozen to prevent tampering)
http://www.freezepage.com/1357603200HXDODTBIQW

The main point of my video -- much unlike what Zvan mentions -- is the problem surrounding Melody Hensley claiming people harass her online while she continues to directly engage with the alleged harassers. Hensley, additionally, says that she blocks people and seems to assert that she wants people to leave her alone but continues to directly engage with these people. If Melody believes people are harassing her and blocks these people, why does she continue to directly engage with these people?

Zvan doesn't even bother to address this, but rather focuses on who the blocked persons are/what they do and consider them "stalkers" and "abusers" while then moving on to say that it's reasonable to distance from "abusers" ...

but doesn't address the discrepancy between Melody's complaints of harassement and seeming assertion of wanting to be left alone and directly engaging the alleged harassers.

Then she makes what seems to be an appeal to pity and continues to not address what I have to say:

It’s that “professional victim” trope again. You know, those of us who dare to say we deserve something other than abuse and say it out loud–we only do it for…money, I guess. It’s how we make our livings, of course.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't respond, but rather am posing what I see to be a contradiction between Melody's words and behavior. She can talk all she wants, but it doesn't appear to make sense for her to continue to directly engage with the people she claims to be harassing her.

Do rational people behave like this in real life? Do people who have actual stalkers or harassers continue to directly engage with them...or do they remove themselves from the situation and stop subjecting themselves to distress?

Zvan then talks about Melody's contributions to the secular community (seemingly continuing the appeal to pity) and seemingly implying that I am dismissing her contributions to the community. I'm not. That's not even something being discussed and has nothing to do with Hensley claiming people are harassing her on Twitter. Zvan, as it seems, is equivocating and ridiculously ignoring the common usage of 'professional victim' - playing word games.

Zvan then engages in personal attacks on me (nothing to do with my video or what I present) and then frames the issue as me attempting to "convince the world that a woman is overracting to sexist abuse" denying her professional contributions (a lie - I never denied her professional contributions; failure to mention something unrelated to what I am presenting is not denial).

The appeal to pity continues coupled with fantastic claims (emphasis mine): "It isn’t a game, though. Melody is being harassed and abused, not moving a ball down a field. There are people who consider this a sport, including Michael Cortese/Mykeru, whom Vacula mentions in the video, but they’re playing with Melody’s professional reputation and emotional health."

Oh, yes, the "harassement" and "abuse" against Melody is so bad that Melody continues to directly engage with people who are allegedly abusing her.... Again, there's a huge inconsistency here. Melody is under no influence whatsoever to respond to Mykeru. She can block him, move on, and never have to read what he has to write on Twitter again. Instead of this, Melody reads what Mykeru types and directly engages with him.

Finally, she says:

“Professional victim” my ass. Melody is one of the people making these movements get things done. Somebody who claims to be an activist could take some lessons. Instead, Vacula is making ad-supported videos dismissing all her important work, work from which he should be learning.

Someone who claims to be an activist? It seems like Zvan, to use her own words, and properly in this case, is denying my contributions. We can compare the activism of Hensley next to mine if she wants. Hensley, though, has a much larger platform and has, as it seems, been involved with activism much longer than me. Check your privilege!

Some old tactics from Zvan and another massive fail of a blog post.

[decius]

Eucliwood, it's up to you to back up your extraordinary assertions, not the other way around.

[Steersman]

I’ll be the first to agree that Ophelia has, to be charitable, some serious blind spots. But gratuitous and personal insults does tend to be counterproductive.

You mean, gratuitous and personal insults like 'Cabinboy Toothless Fuck'?

I’m a strong proponent of never being the first to use nuclear weapons ….

You might want to note that that insult of mine was a “second use”, if not in response to a provocation other than a first one. In which case, I figure the insult isn't "gratuitous", but bought and paid for well before delivery ….

Ah right. So if you didn't start it, then it's not counterproductive - right?

So you would say that England declaring war on Germany following the latter’s invasion of Poland was “counterproductive”? I mean, look at all of the devastation that followed which could have been obviated if Neville – “peace in our time” – Chamberlain had had his way.

Turn and turn-about, I’ve found, tends to be far more effective; ounce of prevention and all that.

[sacha]

I just came from the gym, 26 minutes late, in fact.

A couple years ago we had a woman complain about how "hostile" we guys were to each other, when we were just doing the guy ribbing thing.

I can see how, in the absence of that social dynamic, someone may possibly grow up to be thin-skinned and under the mistaken impression that criticism is harassment.

And, not coincidentally, grow a big fat ass.

I think that's an AngloWorld thing. In PuertoRicoLand, both males and females make comments about your body weight and we don't roll into fetal position about the comments. People here (specially females) get all worked up because someone told them the obvious.

definitely a white US woman phenomenon, at least to that extent

[Eucliwood]

Eucliwood, it's up to you to back up your extraordinary assertions, not the other way around.

Extraordinary?! Are you serious? And no, I didn't tell you to back it up. I just told you that I don't file everything. You don't have to assume it's true, but i would appreciate it if you dropped the "rapists in jail are guilty, courts can't be corrupted" attitude. It's really scary that some people think someone being released from jail who was convicted with a total lack of evidence is "extraordinary." With the "rules" you posted, that should be really the only way to be released, in your eyes. I hate that some people think the court system is so solid.

[Steersman]

The questions are whether those feelings are fucked and how badly.

Steersman, you could've saved time by telling me just how MY Feelings are fucked, like theirs.

I suggested a “how” in my first post which you seem not to have spent any time thinking about. Except to react by claiming some “privilege” due to having some feelings. Which I followed up by pointing out that feelings don’t necessarily mean squat.

[Eucliwood]

I suggested a “how” in my first post which you seem not to have spent any time thinking about. Except to react by claiming some “privilege” due to having some feelings. Which I followed up by pointing out that feelings don’t necessarily mean squat.

You left a part out. - as long as there's a reason for them. Please do not leave parts out again. That was deliberate.

You had no reason to object to the insult to poor Ophelia in the first place. Shitty people get insulted. Shitty people invoke feelings of dislike in people. And sometimes, those people voice it. I have no reason to refrain from doing so.

[decius]

"Corrupted courts" are a pretty extraordinary claim. I know of overzealous investigation agencies and prosecutors, sometimes keen on pinning unsolved murders or high-profile cases on someone. Rape isn't the type of crime that gets sheriffs or prosecutors elected, not by any stretch of the imaginations.
This doesn't mean that every convicted rapist in your country is guilty. But what you're alleging makes very little sense.

[Outwest]

Well, now I'm mad.

I bought a wardrobe valet so I can hang up my bike gear for a quick morning change and to have a place to hang my helmet while the light system and camcorder charges.

Didn't go so well putting it together, you can gauge my disappointment:

[spoiler]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8091/8359 ... a206_b.jpg[/spoiler]

Did you really say that about Laden's book in a product review? :lol:

[Tigzy]

So you would say that England declaring war on Germany following the latter’s invasion of Poland was “counterproductive”? I mean, look at all of the devastation that followed which could have been obviated if Neville – “peace in our time” – Chamberlain had had his way.

Turn and turn-about, I’ve found, tends to be far more effective; ounce of prevention and all that.

Last time I checked, there was a world of difference between, uh, declaring war on another country and throwing an insult at CommanderTuvok.

Really Steers, you do make me larf.

[sacha]

They talked to him with the assumption he was a white male? How rood and racist. As for dissimilar opinions, I just can't believe codelette's opinions period, but my father might have them (ew?). He's not very good at talking my ear off though, always says general things, keeps being ambiguous then later on reveals what he meant.

Are you twelve?

"Are you high" is my usual thought, but yeah, 12 works too.

That was one of my options, the other were:
"Are you a retard?"
"Are you a magnificent troll?"
I asked the most charitable of my questions ...although, being a troll beats being a pre-pubescent child.

I asked if she had a significant learning disability the first day, but now she's occasionally spot on. If she could continue with that and get rid of the rest, she would be tolerable... of course she's a child, hasn't that been obvious since the first day?

[Outwest]

Quick response to Zvan's blog post responding to my "Professional Victim Melody Hensley" video:

(her post, frozen to prevent tampering)
http://www.freezepage.com/1357603200HXDODTBIQW

The main point of my video -- much unlike what Zvan mentions -- is the problem surrounding Melody Hensley claiming people harass her online while she continues to directly engage with the alleged harassers. Hensley, additionally, says that she blocks people and seems to assert that she wants people to leave her alone but continues to directly engage with these people. If Melody believes people are harassing her and blocks these people, why does she continue to directly engage with these people?

Zvan doesn't even bother to address this, but rather focuses on who the blocked persons are/what they do and consider them "stalkers" and "abusers" while then moving on to say that it's reasonable to distance from "abusers" ...

but doesn't address the discrepancy between Melody's complaints of harassement and seeming assertion of wanting to be left alone and directly engaging the alleged harassers.

Then she makes what seems to be an appeal to pity and continues to not address what I have to say:

It’s that “professional victim” trope again. You know, those of us who dare to say we deserve something other than abuse and say it out loud–we only do it for…money, I guess. It’s how we make our livings, of course.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't respond, but rather am posing what I see to be a contradiction between Melody's words and behavior. She can talk all she wants, but it doesn't appear to make sense for her to continue to directly engage with the people she claims to be harassing her.

Do rational people behave like this in real life? Do people who have actual stalkers or harassers continue to directly engage with them...or do they remove themselves from the situation and stop subjecting themselves to distress?

Zvan then talks about Melody's contributions to the secular community (seemingly continuing the appeal to pity) and seemingly implying that I am dismissing her contributions to the community. I'm not. That's not even something being discussed and has nothing to do with Hensley claiming people are harassing her on Twitter. Zvan, as it seems, is equivocating and ridiculously ignoring the common usage of 'professional victim' - playing word games.

Zvan then engages in personal attacks on me (nothing to do with my video or what I present) and then frames the issue as me attempting to "convince the world that a woman is overracting to sexist abuse" denying her professional contributions (a lie - I never denied her professional contributions; failure to mention something unrelated to what I am presenting is not denial).

The appeal to pity continues coupled with fantastic claims (emphasis mine): "It isn’t a game, though. Melody is being harassed and abused, not moving a ball down a field. There are people who consider this a sport, including Michael Cortese/Mykeru, whom Vacula mentions in the video, but they’re playing with Melody’s professional reputation and emotional health."

Oh, yes, the "harassement" and "abuse" against Melody is so bad that Melody continues to directly engage with people who are allegedly abusing her.... Again, there's a huge inconsistency here. Melody is under no influence whatsoever to respond to Mykeru. She can block him, move on, and never have to read what he has to write on Twitter again. Instead of this, Melody reads what Mykeru types and directly engages with him.

Finally, she says:

“Professional victim” my ass. Melody is one of the people making these movements get things done. Somebody who claims to be an activist could take some lessons. Instead, Vacula is making ad-supported videos dismissing all her important work, work from which he should be learning.

Someone who claims to be an activist? It seems like Zvan, to use her own words, and properly in this case, is denying my contributions. We can compare the activism of Hensley next to mine if she wants. Hensley, though, has a much larger platform and has, as it seems, been involved with activism much longer than me. Check your privilege!

Some old tactics from Zvan and another massive fail of a blog post.

You didn't actually expect a fair assessment of your video, did you? She, like some of the others, write in an echo chamber and those that refuse participate are denigrated and dismissed, the evidence presented ignored.

[sacha]

I'd ask if you're naturally that stupid, but I don't care. I'm not here to explain everything to you. Use your head. you know what that is, it's that lump of shit approximately three feet above your ass.

Looks like welch has joined the bandwagon. Well, Ms. Welch, it was a diss, and with that, a rhetorical question. I didn't expect you to respond with a literal answer, and definitely not with an attitude. Lose the attitude, and read between the lines.

Why wasn't your mother more into anal and facials.

hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa!

[AndrewV69]

All good points, although I don't think the WHO see poverty as relative. I imagine there is a methodology to determine whether someone is poor. Lack of adequate food, clothing, shelter etc. You were not poor my friend, not by a long shot. This is akin to the first world problems mewled about by the femtards.

Of course I was not poor. I did not feel poor for one second. As a matter of fact, I was very amused that a school boy of 15 who owned eight horses and had several adult employees (stable hands, cabbie) at age 15 considered himself poor.

Especially as his net private income in a single term exceeded the annual income of three masters combined. Did I mention I was amused? Well I certainly was. Never stopped him from moaning about how unfair it all was though.

[Eucliwood]

"Corrupted courts" are a pretty extraordinary claim. I know of overzealous investigation agencies and prosecutors, sometimes keen on pinning unsolved murders or high-profile cases on someone. Rape isn't the type of crime that gets sheriffs or prosecutors elected, not by any stretch of the imaginations.
This doesn't mean that every convicted rapist in your country is guilty. But what you're alleging makes very little sense.

Oh my god, are you serious? Since when is corruption in courts an extraordinary claim? How ignorant can you get? You'd probably choke if you actually paid attention to cases. Don't eat food if you ever start considering the possibility and paying attention. "Oh my god, they unjustly imprisoned X? *chokes* That's CRAZY" "Oh my goood, someone tampered with something? what the hell!" "Oh my god, they are bullshitting with 'psychological tests' and using children as Easier Conviction tools? *spittake*"

I don't have time to read shit I've already read or know in scholarly journals, which is probably what you'd need to even begin the possibility of an "extraordinary" reality. You need a dose of it first hand. I'm not wishing a LONG imprisonment on you.. maybe a few days or something. You should go in a database and look up "innocent" "prisoner" in quotes like that or something. Or maybe "innocent prisoners" together like that.

[sacha]

Tigger warning is cool. Some of us have tail bouncing issues.

There's something about the juxtaposition of "Tigger" and "rape" that I find very amusing...

[spoiler][/spoiler]

I'm going to hell for that, aren't I?

since I think it is funny, yes.

[fascination]

SPACKlick, trying to use the "rules" of court - "beyond a reasonable doubt", etc is pretty unfair. If that was enough, there wouldn't be people being released from prison after it turns out - surprise - they are innocent. If it can't be proven beyond a doubt, the jury simply votes on it. With the appeals the prosecution gets to abuse, I'm not surprised... first, I watched cases, read about them, and simply thought "ugh, prosecution system can play dirty!" but now I get it... sometimes all it takes is jury vote.

The cases you're likely to have watched on TV are murders, aren't they?
It is perfectly possible to be convicted for murder on strong circumstancial evidence alone and occasionally in the absence of a corpse. Rape is completely different. It doesn't even make it to court without signs of violence and DNA evidence.

The young man in this case was recently convicted of rape by instrumentation without any physical evidence and the accused passed all lie detector tests:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb ... 62195.html
Apparently many people believe the two women (who were intoxicated and didn't know the defendant) misidentified him , as there was at least one other person at the party who looked similar and was of the same height. There were no blacks on the jury.

[fascination]

For those interested: http://support.operationsmile.org/goto/reneehendricks I'm shooting for a $5K goal and will do my level best to put this out anywhere and everywhere. Shoes are shit. A child's smile is worth more than $260 shoes :)

Donated

[Darren]

You should go in a database and look up "innocent" "prisoner" in quotes like that or something. Or maybe "innocent prisoners" together like that.

Eucliwood, the presence of innocent people in prison does not mean the courts are corrupt. It's much more likely the defence lawyer sucked.

[Mykeru]

Well, now I'm mad.

I bought a wardrobe valet so I can hang up my bike gear for a quick morning change and to have a place to hang my helmet while the light system and camcorder charges.

Didn't go so well putting it together, you can gauge my disappointment:

[spoiler]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8091/8359 ... a206_b.jpg[/spoiler]

Did you really say that about Laden's book in a product review? :lol:

Yeah, I think I worked that in there pretty smoothly.

[Eucliwood]

You should go in a database and look up "innocent" "prisoner" in quotes like that or something. Or maybe "innocent prisoners" together like that.

Eucliwood, the presence of innocent people in prison does not mean the courts are corrupt. It's much more likely the defence lawyer sucked.

Darren, it depends on the god damn details. I didn't just read "person was innocent in jail" and decide that prosecution is fucked up sometimes.

And yes, sometimes those "court appointed attorneys" suck complete ass. Some don't even meet guidelines.

IMO, in a better world, shouldn't matter if the defense lawyer sucked. There should never be cases of "you couldn't prove you were INNOCENT well enough." Just saying.

[windy]

"Approximately 9" what? Percent? Their source has 9% as the "probability of prison" for rape.

No, 9 accused rapists, and only 5 of them are convicted felons. That's the problem only 5 people have ever been convicted of felony rape.

Then there's that poor woman somewhere in the US who gets raped every 6 minutes...

Do you have any evidence of recent rape convictions where the following was foregone and the pointing of finger deemed sufficient?

To pick a famous case, Brian Banks was, IIRC, convicted without DNA evidence (tests would have been available at the time.) And the DNA testing doesn't guard against "finger pointing", if the DNA got there consensually.

[decius]

Oh my god, are you serious? Since when is corruption in courts an extraordinary claim? How ignorant can you get? You'd probably choke if you actually paid attention to cases. Don't eat food if you ever start considering the possibility and paying attention. "Oh my god, they unjustly imprisoned X? *chokes* That's CRAZY" "Oh my goood, someone tampered with something? what the hell!" "Oh my god, they are bullshitting with 'psychological tests' and using children as Easier Conviction tools? *spittake*"

I don't have time to read shit I've already read or know in scholarly journals, which is probably what you'd need to even begin the possibility of an "extraordinary" reality. You need a dose of it first hand. I'm not wishing a LONG imprisonment on you.. maybe a few days or something. You should go in a database and look up "innocent" "prisoner" in quotes like that or something. Or maybe "innocent prisoners" together like that.

Jesus christ on a meth-fuelled killing spree.

Explain at least the theory, please. Who exactly would benefit from corrupting a court in order to convict the innocent black person of your previous example of rape?

Here is the google scholar search of legal documents for "corrupt court". It returns a grand total of 75 results.
The Journal search returns some 1000 results, nearly all of which concerning third-world countries and historical events from past centuries.

Care to point me to WTF you're talking about?
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=% ... _sdt=2%2C5

[Outwest]

For those interested: http://support.operationsmile.org/goto/reneehendricks I'm shooting for a $5K goal and will do my level best to put this out anywhere and everywhere. Shoes are shit. A child's smile is worth more than $260 shoes :)

Donated

As well.

[Eucliwood]

Oh my god, are you serious? Since when is corruption in courts an extraordinary claim? How ignorant can you get? You'd probably choke if you actually paid attention to cases. Don't eat food if you ever start considering the possibility and paying attention. "Oh my god, they unjustly imprisoned X? *chokes* That's CRAZY" "Oh my goood, someone tampered with something? what the hell!" "Oh my god, they are bullshitting with 'psychological tests' and using children as Easier Conviction tools? *spittake*"

I don't have time to read shit I've already read or know in scholarly journals, which is probably what you'd need to even begin the possibility of an "extraordinary" reality. You need a dose of it first hand. I'm not wishing a LONG imprisonment on you.. maybe a few days or something. You should go in a database and look up "innocent" "prisoner" in quotes like that or something. Or maybe "innocent prisoners" together like that.

Jesus christ on a meth-fuelled killing spree.

Explain at least the theory, please. Who exactly would benefit from corrupting a court in order to convict the innocent black person of your previous example of rape?

Here is the google scholar search of legal documents for "corrupt court". It returns a grand total of 75 results.
The Journal search returns some 1000 results, nearly all of which concerning third-world countries and historical events from past centuries.

Care to point me to WTF you're talking about?
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=% ... _sdt=2%2C5

"

That's not what I told you to google. In fact, I gave you suggestions, and neither of them were that. I never said that I read articles that spelled "corrupt court" out for me. I don't need someone stating it to say that in those cases, they were corrupt... As for the question "What do they benefit from being racially prejudiced in court?" Are you fucking serious? You're one of those deniers? They make movies out of it sometimes. Like that mayor (governor) who got a bunch of people arrested just to throw minorities in jail. In that case, it was deliberate and he knew good and well they weren't guilty of it though.. still counts.

You didn't even reply to any of the links others gave. What are your responses to them?

WHat makes you think there are scholarly articles that say things like "corrupt court"? It sounds more like a news article phrase.

[Cunning Punt]

[spoiler]

I think I'd disagree with your definition of Doxing and make it broader. Revealing information about someone to an audience it wasn't intended for is doxxing. I use several handles on the internet, it is on this handle alone (and the one I had banned at a+) that I talk about my experiences of having been raped and falsely accused of rape. There is probably sufficient information, publicly available, to tie SPACKlick to other handles I use, from there to email addresses used to sign up to forums etc. from there you may be able to tie me to a company and shortly thereafter an individual. But you would have to work at it. In some audiences I would be harmed, not significantly harmed, but nevertheless harmed by the confluence of this information. So having to take active steps to link a name and a nym is doxxing pure and simple, unless a name has been revealed to this audience, passing it on is doxxing.

I think agreeing on what doxxing IS, is one of the problems.
Was revealing Brownians name an example of doxxing?
Was that any different from the way Wolly Bumblebees name was revealed?

What exactly is meant by intended audience.
Is revealing your RL name on a public messageboard enough to consider it public knowledge?
There are lots of nuances to this that depend on defining what the words mean in the first place.
(and unfortunately doxxing doesn't seem to be in the dictionary!)

When is doxxing doxxing? I think it depends on the amount of information you would need to be able to do it. If you need either (a) information that is not publicly available, or (b) a combination of various pieces of public information, where the combination is not obvious, then you are probably doxxing. Conversely, if you only need an obvious combination of publicly available information than you are not doxxing. There will always be borderline cases (when is 'obvious' obvious?)

In the case of Brownian all that was needed to find his real name was the combination of his pseudonym and the name of the site on which he frequently commented, Pharyngula. You were then able to find another website on which he openly linked his real name to his pseudonym and to Pharyngula. Not doxxing, I would say.

He also inflicted the pseudo-doxxing upon himself by teasing certain ‘pitters that they were clueless enough to believe that his real name was Ian Brown.

One of them (Real Paden) then wanted to prove that Brownian was himself the clueless one, and did this by calling him Anthony K.

As far as I know, his full name was never published here, although the site where it could be found was linked to. As I said at the time, I couldn’t care less what Brownian’s real name was and I don’t understand why he felt the need to stop posting under that ‘nym. That he immediately started to call himself Anthony K indicates to me more a desire for wannabee victimhood (“look how the evil slympitters doxxed me”) than any real necessity.

I don't know enough about the case of WB to have a valid opinion.[/spoiler]

Sorry, Reap Paden.

That's Rape Pardon to you.

[Darren]

IMO, in a better world, shouldn't matter if the defense lawyer sucked. There should never be cases of "you couldn't prove you were INNOCENT well enough." Just saying.

And I agree 100%. If you ever find this "better world", let me know. I have the feeling we're stuck with the one we've got.

[Eucliwood]

IMO, in a better world, shouldn't matter if the defense lawyer sucked. There should never be cases of "you couldn't prove you were INNOCENT well enough." Just saying.

And I agree 100%. If you ever find this "better world", let me know. I have the feeling we're stuck with the one we've got.

What's your point there, Darren? That can be used as a response to every issue in the world. Next time you complain about something an animate person or group of people have done I'll use that, just to be rude :P

[fascination]

decius, that wasn't Euliwood's example. I gave the link of the young black basketball player. My claim isn't that the courts are corrupted, though (that's Eucliwood). I was just giving you an example of a recent case where someone was convicted of rape without physical evidence or signs of violence. See where I quoted you above?

[Mark Neil]

I brought this up on Skepchick not too long ago. Apparently the "answer" is that few are reported to the police, and we know about all these unreported rapes because they were "reported" to other sources.

That's a big problem for this graphic, because they're assuming without any sort of evidence that any rape claim is legitimate. But in reality, without the "faced trial" part, the actual numbers are inscrutable.

But there's a bigger problem with the graphic though. "Reported" is a subset of "Rapists", "Faced Trial" is a subset of "Reported" and "Rapists", etc. But if we take the "Jailed" section out of "Faced Trial", what we have is another subset, one of several different types of people - people who were convicted of rape but got a lighter sentence, people who faced trial as rapists but were convicted of a lesser crime, and people who were found innocent - that is, falsely accused. Those last two types don't count as rapists, and as such don't belong in the "Rapists" group at all.

Moreover, they shouldn't be getting multiplied by whatever "not reported" percentage they are trying to use. The argument isn't that for every rape reported, 9 go unreported. It is that, for every actual rape, 9 go unreported. When they admit that 2% of all reported rapes are false, but then include that 2% when assuming only 10% of rapes get reported, they are manufacturing 18 rapes on the backs of men who had their lives destroyed because of the very actions they are taking. This applies to all the other falsely accussed/innocent men as well, as wel as all the reports that get recanted because they were false and the accuser had second thoughts about going through with it (doesn't account for all recanting, but surely some of them) that falls under the reported subset. How many of that 1000 figure are actual rapes and not just figments, even assuming the 10% reporting rate was true, is a factor of the convictions, plus some unknown quantity.

[Eucliwood]

decius, that wasn't Euliwood's example. I gave the link of the young black basketball player. My claim isn't that the courts are corrupted, though (that's Eucliwood). I was just giving you an example of a recent case where someone was convicted of rape without physical evidence or signs of violence. See where I quoted you above?

How is that not a case where a court was corrupt in their actions? Is throwing someone in jail without enough evidence not corrupted? And adding a "the" indicates that all courts in a country (in my case, it'd be the United States. By the way, decius, I hope googling for the UK doesn't only return UK results. You wouldn't reply to me with such bs, right?) are corrupted, widespread and evenly.

[decius]

Thanks, Fascination and Windy.

It appears that Brian Banks has been exonerated, later. It doesn't make it acceptable, but it shows that self-correcting measures are in place.

[Lurkion]

This list of things set out by Zvan is why we should be complaining to CFI about having Hensley as a leader. If she's going to be that important, she's going to have to be a rational person.

(Someone froze this page, I can't remember who (above): http://www.freezepage.com/1357603200HXDODTBIQW)

[ReneeHendricks]

Just donated to Renee's Operation Smile fund. One video of a smiling child after she or he has had the cleft lip corrective surgery is worth the entire Fluevog stock and then some. Here's one:

[spoiler][youtube]odxzGDCQA9U[/youtube][/spoiler]

That's one of my favorite videos there. I've seen it a bunch of times and I still get tears in my eyes when she sees herself for the 1st time in the camera :)

And thank you!!

[Eucliwood]

This list of things set out by Zvan is why we should be complaining to CFI about having Hensley as a leader. If she's going to be that important, she's going to have to be a rational person.

(Someone froze this page, I can't remember who (above): http://www.freezepage.com/1357603200HXDODTBIQW)

Finally, another method... I tried to basically freeze all of their pages using the way back machine, but it's not accepting direct submissions anymore. Going to learn how to freeze pages with this.

Thanks rocko2466!

[xinit]

I'm imagining someone would find a way to make the bouncing seem oppressive.

Tigger warning: Talk about Tigger.

[spoiler]I am actually unable to bounce on my tail. I find that seeing images of Tigger reminds me strongly of my inability to bounce. Very upsetting for me to see his ability glorified, Tigger warnings are a necessity and should be included in convention policies.[/spoiler]

Only Eeyores need Tigger Warnings on everything.

[fascination]

decius, that wasn't Euliwood's example. I gave the link of the young black basketball player. My claim isn't that the courts are corrupted, though (that's Eucliwood). I was just giving you an example of a recent case where someone was convicted of rape without physical evidence or signs of violence. See where I quoted you above?

How is that not a case where a court was corrupt in their actions? Is throwing someone in jail without enough evidence not corrupted? And adding a "the" indicates that all courts in a country (in my case, it'd be the United States. By the way, decius, I hope googling for the UK doesn't only return UK results. You wouldn't reply to me with such bs, right?) are corrupted, widespread and evenly.

Well, I have my own personal feelings about the case. However, I don't like to make claims that I can't back up, KWIM?

[ReneeHendricks]

For those interested: http://support.operationsmile.org/goto/reneehendricks I'm shooting for a $5K goal and will do my level best to put this out anywhere and everywhere. Shoes are shit. A child's smile is worth more than $260 shoes :)

Donated

Thank you! You guys are all awesome :)

[decius]

That's not what I told you to google. In fact, I gave you suggestions, and neither of them were that.


WHat makes you think there are scholarly articles that say things like "corrupt court"? It sounds more like a news article phrase.

I don't have time to read shit I've already read or know in scholarly journals, which is probably what you'd need to even begin the possibility of an "extraordinary" reality.

Sigh.

[ReneeHendricks]

For those interested: http://support.operationsmile.org/goto/reneehendricks I'm shooting for a $5K goal and will do my level best to put this out anywhere and everywhere. Shoes are shit. A child's smile is worth more than $260 shoes :)

Donated

As well.

You already know you rock :) TY!

[Eucliwood]

Well, I have my own personal feelings about the case. However, I don't like to make claims that I can't back up, KWIM?

...What do you mean, can't back up? The case is right there.. that's like saying you need to do additional back up to claim that when a father threw a child into icy cold water and made them swim in it, it was child abuse. Nit picky much?

[fascination]

Thanks, Fascination and Windy.

It appears that Brian Banks has been exonerated, later. It doesn't make it acceptable, but it shows that self-correcting measures are in place.

Your welcome hon! Im glad Banks was exonerated. I hope that Willams gets a new trial.

[ReneeHendricks]

SHIT!!!!! I did the screw up again with the spoiler. Ok. I'm not using it any more because clearly I'm entirely too fucking stupid to ensure it's ok before posting.

[Outwest]

For those interested: http://support.operationsmile.org/goto/reneehendricks I'm shooting for a $5K goal and will do my level best to put this out anywhere and everywhere. Shoes are shit. A child's smile is worth more than $260 shoes :)

Donated

As well.

You already know you rock :) TY!

I need a new pair of chukka boots. :D

[fascination]

For those interested: http://support.operationsmile.org/goto/reneehendricks I'm shooting for a $5K goal and will do my level best to put this out anywhere and everywhere. Shoes are shit. A child's smile is worth more than $260 shoes :)

Donated

Thank you! You guys are all awesome :)

Your welcome sweetie! I'll try to give weekly.

[franc]

But the real outrage is that it was from donations, not earnings. Although at this point I don't think Greta recognizes a difference. Cash from her minions is all the same in her world.

For a confidence trickster, donations obtained fraudulently are honest earnings.

[Eucliwood]

Sigh.

I never told you to waste your time googling that phrase. That's absolutely stupid. Either you didn't think that through, or you deliberately did that, being a smart ass, knowing that it OF COURSE wouldn't really give any results. I ask, again, does Google UK only return UK results? And, if you don't want to believe me, that's fine. But remember, courts are made of people of this world. This isn't exactly a utopia where a claim like that would be "extraordinary" or "unbelievable." I'm glad things like Wikileaks exists - some people used to think the government was cool, too... the "oh, they can't do that, therefore it doesn't happen" sort of thinking.

[decius]

Are you fucking serious? You're one of those deniers? They make movies out of it sometimes.

:lol:

[fascination]

Well, I have my own personal feelings about the case. However, I don't like to make claims that I can't back up, KWIM?

...What do you mean, can't back up? The case is right there.. that's like saying you need to do additional back up to claim that when a father threw a child into icy cold water and made them swim in it, it was child abuse. Nit picky much?

Sigh...I can't prove that the court was corrupt. I think it's a fucked up case and I don't think it should have ever went to trial. However, how can I prove that the court was corrupt?

[decius]

Sigh.

I never told you to waste your time googling that phrase. That's absolutely stupid. Either you didn't think that through, or you deliberately did that, being a smart ass, knowing that it OF COURSE wouldn't really give any results. I ask, again, does Google UK only return UK results? And, if you don't want to believe me, that's fine. But remember, courts are made of people of this world. This isn't exactly a utopia where a claim like that would be "extraordinary" or "unbelievable." I'm glad things like Wikileaks exists - some people used to think the government was cool, too... the "oh, they can't do that, therefore it doesn't happen" sort of thinking.

Google UK just reflects my preference for the Queen's English (I'd rather learn that than some wacky dialect) and for shopping/gallivanting in Europe. Google Scholar's result are the same, except they may get ordered slightly differently.

[Outwest]

Well, now I'm mad.

I bought a wardrobe valet so I can hang up my bike gear for a quick morning change and to have a place to hang my helmet while the light system and camcorder charges.

Didn't go so well putting it together, you can gauge my disappointment:

[spoiler]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8091/8359 ... a206_b.jpg[/spoiler]

Did you really say that about Laden's book in a product review? :lol:

Yeah, I think I worked that in there pretty smoothly.

You had me laughing so hard, I had to walk away for a few minutes.

[ReneeHendricks]

ShoeGate video feedback :)

[youtube]2dsb3TMhVhg[/youtube]

[Lurkion]

For those interested: http://support.operationsmile.org/goto/reneehendricks I'm shooting for a $5K goal and will do my level best to put this out anywhere and everywhere. Shoes are shit. A child's smile is worth more than $260 shoes :)

Donated

As well.

You already know you rock :) TY!

I donated too. When do I get my surgery?

[Eucliwood]

Sigh...I can't prove that the court was corrupt. I think it's a fucked up case and I don't think it should have ever went to trial. However, how can I prove that the court was corrupt?

What do you mean how can you prove it? Are you being funny or something?
[youtube]
G-U6Zy2dHjg[/youtube]

Can you prove that there was a pile of leaves there?

If you still disagree or whatever... it's just a dropped topic. I don't know what else to say.

[fascination]

Sigh...I can't prove that the court was corrupt. I think it's a fucked up case and I don't think it should have ever went to trial. However, how can I prove that the court was corrupt?

What do you mean how can you prove it? Are you being funny or something?
[youtube]
G-U6Zy2dHjg[/youtube]

Can you prove that there was a pile of leaves there?

If you still disagree or whatever... it's just a dropped topic. I don't know what else to say.

No, I'm not trying to be funny. We can just agree to disagree. :)