Thanks, peterb.peterb wrote: Exquisitely understated barn owl. Well played.
Joe Walsh Agrees.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Mines would be :
http://www.google.com/url?source=imglan ... hp4M-eIpAA
http://www.google.com/url?source=imglan ... mHbkTmjdQA
Pretty basic, I know.
But that's not what he was saying. He was saying, based *solely* on numbers, that our point of the A+ point "not being well received" is pretty dodgy. Really, it's right there at the top. Had he said "Based on these numbers, A+ is more popular than the Slymepit", that's a valid comparison. It's one that you can use those numbers for, and it's ONLY talking about "which is more popular".Steersman wrote:I think you’re missing the point. The question isn’t which side is right – using the “argumentum ad populumâ€, but which side is the most popular. And a definition of popular is “widely liked or appreciated†by which the numbers quoted proves the point: Jen’s “new idea†was in fact “well received†by the majority [approx 2000/2300 (population of A+/(pop A+ plus pop SlymePit)].welch wrote:and your sole evidence that the statement is not well-received is based on the numbers on A+ being larger than here. That's exactly "arguing from popularity", aka, A+ has more people, therefore, our points that their points are not that popular are wrong. Were people here to create 5000 sockpuppet accounts, would you then reverse your statement? Don't answer, we already know you wouldn't. Instead, you'd start on about how numbers mean nothing, blah, blahdy, blah. Because that's what you do. Really, you're positively Romneyesque in how continuously fluid any stand you take is. ....oolon, slimy turd wrote: ...
I was not saying A+ are in any sense 'correct' about anything because they have more numbers than the slymepit or anywhere else, just that the numbers show that the statement that it 'was not well received' is to be considered pretty dodgy. ....
Although I'll concede that those numbers - 2000 & 2300 - are only a small sample and anything but random. But that was, I expect, the reason for Oolon's "dodgy" ….
Oh, that's fascinating. :DBarnOwl wrote:Setting aside the fact that I don't really accept the concept of "race" as applied to humans, there is indeed something different about Austin. It's the only one of the four cities listed above that I've never called home, so perhaps I'm no judge, but the 2010 Census data seem to indicate that it's not the same as other Texas cities. And Austin, apparently, is an acceptable city to visit for a convention, because it's "not really part of Texas." Any thoughts on why Austin is OK and why it's not really part of Texas?
Found it. Thank Gooby - http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 242#p21242rayshul wrote:Thanks for the stats link Franc
I'll grant you that only Austin has SXSW, but that's in March.cunt wrote:Do they also have the SXSW festival?
She's a schoolteacher? I wouldn't let her anywhere near my kids. Crazy, self righteous, person of the xie persuasion.JackRayner wrote:Maybe Mykery hasn't posted this here because he feels like he's pimping his stuff too often, [or maybe he's sleeping because he's got an early day tomorrow...like I do] so I'll do it for him:
[youtube]Yy0gryjLIsU[/youtube]
Seriously though. This is fucking uncanny. Like, I know she had already shown herself to be a bit on the crazy side when she told John the Other that he hated women, only to act as if she never said anything other than "don't talk to me" an instant later, but....wow. IRL Creepy Bitter Grrl is fucking crazy. :?
It's a bit saddening to think that there might be young boys in her care who might be turned off school completely by her behavior towards them. I might be impugning her unfairly, but I suspect she's the type to carry her emotional baggage with her into the class room.KiwiInOz wrote:She's a schoolteacher? I wouldn't let her anywhere near my kids. Crazy, self righteous, person of the xie persuasion.
Or one of those strange videos where a mouse is fed to some frightening Amazonian creature.John Greg wrote:Jesus, the world is a crazy train.
/bangs angry head on wall
....
Sasha ought to be introduced, face-to-face, in a room of eloquent design, to sacha.
Either education, or thermal nuclear war, would ensue.
Delurking to make a comment. Isn't it a false dichotomy to compare A+ to here. Shouldn't they compare A+ to the total population that reads the various Atheist blogs? I once did a back of the envelope calculation for PZ site a few years ago and I think that his readership was much larger than 2000.Steersman wrote:I think you’re missing the point. The question isn’t which side is right – using the “argumentum ad populumâ€, but which side is the most popular. And a definition of popular is “widely liked or appreciated†by which the numbers quoted proves the point: Jen’s “new idea†was in fact “well received†by the majority [approx 2000/2300 (population of A+/(pop A+ plus pop SlymePit)].welch wrote:and your sole evidence that the statement is not well-received is based on the numbers on A+ being larger than here. That's exactly "arguing from popularity", aka, A+ has more people, therefore, our points that their points are not that popular are wrong. Were people here to create 5000 sockpuppet accounts, would you then reverse your statement? Don't answer, we already know you wouldn't. Instead, you'd start on about how numbers mean nothing, blah, blahdy, blah. Because that's what you do. Really, you're positively Romneyesque in how continuously fluid any stand you take is. ....oolon, slimy turd wrote: ...
I was not saying A+ are in any sense 'correct' about anything because they have more numbers than the slymepit or anywhere else, just that the numbers show that the statement that it 'was not well received' is to be considered pretty dodgy. ....
Although I'll concede that those numbers - 2000 & 2300 - are only a small sample and anything but random. But that was, I expect, the reason for Oolon's "dodgy" ….
No. There was a recent Rothko show in Portland (where he grew up) that I went to but I haven't made it to Houston yet. It's on my list.BarnOwl wrote:Thanks, peterb.peterb wrote: Exquisitely understated barn owl. Well played.
Nice Rothko avatar, btw. Have you been to the Rothko Chapel
r.
JREF has a lot of inactive members, so you'd have to go by the active membership... good luck trying to figure that out!Michael J wrote:So I think that 2000 is a good number but how many members does JREF have?
welch wrote:But that's not what he was saying. He was saying, based *solely* on numbers, that our point of the A+ point "not being well received" is pretty dodgy.Steersman wrote: ...I think you’re missing the point. The question isn’t which side is right – using the “argumentum ad populumâ€, but which side is the most popular. And a definition of popular is “widely liked or appreciated†by which the numbers quoted proves the point: Jen’s “new idea†was in fact “well received†by the majority [approx 2000/2300 (population of A+/(pop A+ plus pop SlymePit)]. ….
Maybe your “our†is intended to imply that the entire SlymePit as a body is behind that CLS statement.Where does it say in the charter than I can’t criticize Jen McCreight for storming off the Internet in a huff when her new idea wasn’t well received?
That’s basically all Oolon said on that point:welch wrote:Really, it's right there at the top. Had he said "Based on these numbers, A+ is more popular than the Slymepit", that's a valid comparison. It's one that you can use those numbers for, and it's ONLY talking about "which is more popular".
And from those numbers he inferred – from a somewhat questionable sample but still a less dodgy one that that provided by CLS – that Jen’s idea was in fact “well receivedâ€:… but I see there are 1600+ members – which is something you could only dream about. By way of contrast the slymepit has 200+ members. So the ‘evidence’ for a general statement of not well received is a bit lacking in terms of raw numbers.
Maybe a tenuous conclusion since, as mentioned, the membership numbers of two groups probably doesn’t constitute much in the way of a credible “random sampleâ€, but, arguably, far better evidence than anything offered by CLS.Not well received by a small number of people [i.e., some on the SlymePit?], some of which then engaged in an unpleasant campaign to ridicule her for having an idea ...
Admittedly, a bit of a stretch. But it was the claim of CLS that that idea “wasn’t well receivedâ€; it was their obligation to provide the evidence. All Oolon really had to do to call that claim into question was to provide a set of numbers – the membership counts of two supposedly central players in the drama – that suggested, quite credibly I think, that that claim was rather dodgy.welch wrote:There's no way you can say the A+ message is or is not well-received based on the fucking membership numbers of two web sites.
Considering that more than a few people here have touted any number of aspects of The Pit in contradistinction to FTB/A+, that characterization doesn’t seem all that much of a stretch. Although I’ll agree he was somewhat out-to-lunch with his “Especially given this place has been going for years …â€: while he’s partially wrong in the sense that the SlymePit, as hosted by phpBB, has only been about for about 4 months, he’s correct in the sense that the Slime Pit, as a thread on Science Blogs, has probably been going for several years. However, I wonder whether you called WBB and Dick Strawkins and mordacious “lying sacks of shit†for their transgressions ….welch wrote:Holy fuckoley. Of course, then Oolon goes to say this site markets itself as the "alternative to FTB and A+" once again, showing he's a lying sack of shit.
I think you need to take a much closer look at what he actually said as I don’t see that at all; matter of fact, I see something almost the exact opposite:welch wrote:But that aside, what he said was not "who's more popular". He was using popularity to say our points about A+ are wrong. THAT'S the part people have a problem with.
===I was not saying A+ are in any sense 'correct' about anything because they have more numbers than the slymepit or anywhere else, just that the numbers show that the statement that it 'was not well received' is to be considered pretty dodgy.
I once rubbed one out as a 13-year old sitting on the lounge with a blanket draped over my lap, ogling Barbara Eden, the titular Jeannie, I dream thereof.StyxMaker wrote:It was Anette on the original Mickey Mouse Club show for me. Yeah, I'm old.Tigzy wrote:Kate Bush just used to scare the shit out of me.
In a similar vein, I was too young to appreciate Sally James from Tiswas. I can appreciate her now, though. And fully understand why she so frequently had buckets of water thrown over her:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_lKL9DLKmCpI/S ... _james.jpg
Good questions, although I don’t think it qualifies as a false dichotomy as I doubt that Oolon was trying to argue that the AtheismPlus and SlymePit forums encompass all who might have an opinion on the former.Michael J wrote:Delurking to make a comment. Isn't it a false dichotomy to compare A+ to here. Shouldn't they compare A+ to the total population that reads the various Atheist blogs? I once did a back of the envelope calculation for PZ site a few years ago and I think that his readership was much larger than 2000.Steersman wrote: ....
I think you’re missing the point. The question isn’t which side is right – using the “argumentum ad populumâ€, but which side is the most popular. And a definition of popular is “widely liked or appreciated†by which the numbers quoted proves the point: Jen’s “new idea†was in fact “well received†by the majority [approx 2000/2300 (population of A+/(pop A+ plus pop SlymePit)].
Although I'll concede that those numbers - 2000 & 2300 - are only a small sample and anything but random. But that was, I expect, the reason for Oolon's "dodgy" ….
So I think that 2000 is a good number but how many members does JREF have?
100% true. Pure fucking rage in every single comment no matter the subject.Pinker wrote:
It's good to see that The_Laughing_Coyote's insanity hasn't gone unnoticed. A member like that will poison a forum more than any troll ever will.
I was pretty fucking pregnant when I posted on the first thread on ERV and now I have a 1 year old. Unless there's time travel involved the Slimepit hasn't been going for years. The split happened at Elevatorgate.Steersman wrote:Considering that more than a few people here have touted any number of aspects of The Pit in contradistinction to FTB/A+, that characterization doesn’t seem all that much of a stretch. Although I’ll agree he was somewhat out-to-lunch with his “Especially given this place has been going for years …â€: while he’s partially wrong in the sense that the SlymePit, as hosted by phpBB, has only been about for about 4 months, he’s correct in the sense that the Slime Pit, as a thread on Science Blogs, has probably been going for several years. However, I wonder whether you called WBB and Dick Strawkins and mordacious “lying sacks of shit†for their transgressions ….
Just out of curiousity, particularly since I can’t see the details from Russell Blackford’s Twitter log, do you think he was referring to my earlier post on the topic? As I certainly didn’t say that Massimo Pigliucci coined the phrase:Dick Strawkins wrote:Regarding the numbers question and the comparison of the slymepit with Atheismplus, I think it's worth remembering the different reasons behind both messageboards.
Atheismplus is meant to be the main site for a 'movement' designed to promote social justice from an atheist perspective (or, depending on how you see it, sideline and exclude those atheists who are not in the correct political camp.)
The slymepit, on the other hand is more of an information resource, collating the instances of embarrassing hypocrisy perpetrated by the FTB hierarchy and thus limiting the effect of their self promoting dishonesty.
In fact the slymepit need have only one member to be of use.
People do not need to be members here, they just need to read it - and I'm pretty sure we have many more readers than official members.
http://i.imgur.com/gYCJU.jpg
Although if that is the case then it’s nice to know that he thinks that I seem “otherwise like a reasonable person†…. :-)While I think there’s maybe some justification – “chairperson†and the like, I also think that much of it is so many “just-so†stories and pseudoscience – “nonsense on stilts†as the philosopher Massimo Pigliucci put it in a book of the same name.
NO!Tony Parsehole wrote:It's good to see that The_Laughing_Coyote's insanity hasn't gone unnoticed. A member like that will poison a forum more than any troll ever will.
http://www.joecrazy.com/wp-content/uplo ... chens.jpegSkep tickle wrote:Just to mix it up a bit, let's add some testosterone:
I guess he can't be right all the time! :DSteersman wrote: it’s nice to know that he thinks that I seem “otherwise like a reasonable person†…. :-)
I'm pretty much sure Blackford, like Kazez, is one of these loathsome creatures known as "centrists" in political speak. One's who's convictions vary, depending on the immediate environment. Kazez has shown herself clearly to want to play and exploit both sides. Blackford OTOH, while not that bad, has not provided any clear evidence that he doesn't.rayshul wrote:Ooohhh...I can see how he might have misread it, Steersman. I feel like that could be the reference, too. Although Russell if you're lurking you could always come in and explain what you were referring to.
I know it's filthy in here but there's always anonymous posting.
You’re right: from Scented Nectar’s archive I see the first post for the Periodic Table of Swearing was November 26, 2011. Although I don’t think it a crucial point and certainly not one that several have used to rake Oolon over the coals ….rayshul wrote: ....I was pretty fucking pregnant when I posted on the first thread on ERV and now I have a 1 year old. Unless there's time travel involved the Slimepit hasn't been going for years. The split happened at Elevatorgate.Steersman wrote:Considering that more than a few people here have touted any number of aspects of The Pit in contradistinction to FTB/A+, that characterization doesn’t seem all that much of a stretch. Although I’ll agree he was somewhat out-to-lunch with his “Especially given this place has been going for years …â€: while he’s partially wrong in the sense that the SlymePit, as hosted by phpBB, has only been about for about 4 months, he’s correct in the sense that the Slime Pit, as a thread on Science Blogs, has probably been going for several years. However, I wonder whether you called WBB and Dick Strawkins and mordacious “lying sacks of shit†for their transgressions ….
Beg to differ on that. For those of us who have been banned or have found the level of invective or hypocrisy intolerable on FTB I would say that the SlymePit qualifies as a very credible alternative. Where else could people voice opinions so critical of FTB if not here? Where else could discussions take place that lead to the collating of those cases of hypocrisy if not here? [Thanks to Abbie/Lsuoma]The 'pit is not an alternative and never has been. People point out the contradictions here because they want to point out some element of hypocrisy or contrast - for example people may say, "I made a mistake, I withdraw my opinion..." and then say that this would not be something you'd see often on FtB. That doesn't mean it's "the alternative".
Yes, quite agree about the promoting – somewhat amusing to see references and links on other blogs to various statements made here – and it is not just the FtB doing that. And likewise about the “support and information group†– but an alternative doesn’t have to be of the same type ….The people who most actively promote the 'pit are FtB themselves, and most people who are new here normally talk like someone exiting a cult they didn't even know they'd entered. Really, we're more like a support and information group. :-)
I think QRG (Quiet Riot Girl) Has better examples of "metrosexy" if you are into it.Skep tickle wrote:Just to mix it up a bit, let's add some testosterone:
Swung and missed big time there, didn't he? :-)Dick Strawkins wrote:http://i.imgur.com/gYCJU.jpg
I guess he can't be right all the time! :DSteersman wrote: it’s nice to know that he thinks that I seem “otherwise like a reasonable person†…. :-)
That will definitely add another log to the fire ...I've always assumed he was 'franc'
(well, if Ophelia is going to hate him, she might as well have a decent reason!) :D
Clever people, these Chinese ... inscrutable ...(Then again he could be Michael K Gray - disguising himself with that unnaturally vehement utter hatred of philosophy!) ;)
It actually started back in july 2011, and it was my first point of contention with Oolon's post.Steersman wrote: You’re right: from Scented Nectar’s archive I see the first post for the Periodic Table of Swearing was November 26, 2011. Although I don’t think it a crucial point and certainly not one that several have used to rake Oolon over the coals ….
There are probably hundred other places where you can post with this attitude, not just the Pyt (AtBC, The Friendly Atheist...etc). We don't have the monopole of rational discourse, thus we are not the alternative. An alternative, maybe.Beg to differ on that. For those of us who have been banned or have found the level of invective or hypocrisy intolerable on FTB I would say that the SlymePit qualifies as a very credible alternative. Where else could people voice opinions so critical of FTB if not here? Where else could discussions take place that lead to the collating of those cases of hypocrisy if not here? [Thanks to Abbie/Lsuoma]
Agree with Phil there. It's somewhere you can talk but as Phil points out it's not the only place. I'd consider a credible place as being anywhere where you can talk to atheists/people interested in atheism. The closest to a true alternative are the other blog networks at atheist-patheos, salientsight and skeptic ink.Steersman wrote:Beg to differ on that. For those of us who have been banned or have found the level of invective or hypocrisy intolerable on FTB I would say that the SlymePit qualifies as a very credible alternative. Where else could people voice opinions so critical of FTB if not here? Where else could discussions take place that lead to the collating of those cases of hypocrisy if not here? [Thanks to Abbie/Lsuoma]The 'pit is not an alternative and never has been. People point out the contradictions here because they want to point out some element of hypocrisy or contrast - for example people may say, "I made a mistake, I withdraw my opinion..." and then say that this would not be something you'd see often on FtB. That doesn't mean it's "the alternative".
Yeah it's always safer to be anonymous, and that really goes out to everyone watching.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Which brings me to: Rayshul, I don't think it would be a good idea for Russell to post here (not anonymously). He got lot's of crap from the usual suspects last year for disagreeing and posting at ERV. As far as I know, Myers still hasn't appologized for calling him a liar (more precisely: "this is a blatant lie"). Still, it's nice to know Russell is lurking a bit. Hi Russell!
Yeah, the post about William Sanders was also fascinating, I don't remember if you already linked to it before?rayshul wrote:I'm whoring about William Shetterly's blog at the moment because fuck, he's brilliant.
There is one difference - the Slymepit is immune from the sort of dogpiling blackmail to which many big name atheists are susceptible.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:It actually started back in july 2011, and it was my first point of contention with Oolon's post.Steersman wrote: You’re right: from Scented Nectar’s archive I see the first post for the Periodic Table of Swearing was November 26, 2011. Although I don’t think it a crucial point and certainly not one that several have used to rake Oolon over the coals ….
There are probably hundred other places where you can post with this attitude, not just the Pyt (AtBC, The Friendly Atheist...etc). We don't have the monopole of rational discourse, thus we are not the alternative. An alternative, maybe.Beg to differ on that. For those of us who have been banned or have found the level of invective or hypocrisy intolerable on FTB I would say that the SlymePit qualifies as a very credible alternative. Where else could people voice opinions so critical of FTB if not here? Where else could discussions take place that lead to the collating of those cases of hypocrisy if not here? [Thanks to Abbie/Lsuoma]
Yes. Some of us have posted non-anonymously since the beginning at ERV (MKG, JCW, Rystefn, myself...) and some since the new Pyt (Al, Reap, Justin...). I do know the identities of a few pseudos posting here, and we interact elsewhere. If someone who may get dammage from posting under their real name uses a pseudo, no problem, if they want people they know here to be aware of who they are, there's always PMs. I'm quite sure that with all the talks about outing and doxxing we've had, their secret would be safe.rayshul wrote:Yeah it's always safer to be anonymous, and that really goes out to everyone watching.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Which brings me to: Rayshul, I don't think it would be a good idea for Russell to post here (not anonymously). He got lot's of crap from the usual suspects last year for disagreeing and posting at ERV. As far as I know, Myers still hasn't appologized for calling him a liar (more precisely: "this is a blatant lie"). Still, it's nice to know Russell is lurking a bit. Hi Russell!
Oh, I agree. The Pyt itself is immune to that shit. The Pytters, maybe not so much. To be honest, I wouldn't like to see Russell or Paula or any other "big names" post here as themselves to show their support. It would probably not end well. I remember when the format at Nat Geo changed, one of Abbie's "big" friends was outed for some reason. I pointed it out privately and they were back to anon. You never know how far those crazies can go to ruin someone's life. As for my own? As the great philosopher MC Hammer said: Can't touch this.Dick Strawkins wrote:
There is one difference - the Slymepit is immune from the sort of dogpiling blackmail to which many big name atheists are susceptible.
Just look at Hemant at 'The Friendly Atheist' and all the trouble he received, via Marcotte/Skepchicks, from his early post on Elevatorgate.
Look at Justin Griffiths at FTB. Look at Daniel Fincke and his attempt to prevent personal insults on his blog.
How many FTB supporters turn up here to argue - it's just oolon, isn't it?
Why is that?
cunt wrote:Zathlazip... Actually her boss didn't give two shits about what a bunch of mouth-breathing feminists thought. She just panicked, understandably, and deleted the thread after it was gold-mined. It was a very very funny thread.rayshul wrote: Also interesting to read another CALLING OUT incident which has some similarities to what's happened to others:
http://sjwar.blogspot.co.nz/2012/07/soc ... lazip.html
Looks like the OP got saved. http://shii.org/knows/WisCon,_the_Femin ... _self-hate
You need to go to the archive's main page. There were 5 other Slimepit threads before that one. It really did start around ElevatorGate.Steersman wrote:You’re right: from Scented Nectar’s archive I see the first post for the Periodic Table of Swearing was November 26, 2011. Although I don’t think it a crucial point and certainly not one that several have used to rake Oolon over the coals ….
Once I saw that the story involvedrayshul wrote:omfg you're kidding.
That woman is toxic.
Dick Strawkins wrote:cunt wrote:Zathlazip... Actually her boss didn't give two shits about what a bunch of mouth-breathing feminists thought. She just panicked, understandably, and deleted the thread after it was gold-mined. It was a very very funny thread.rayshul wrote: Also interesting to read another CALLING OUT incident which has some similarities to what's happened to others:
http://sjwar.blogspot.co.nz/2012/07/soc ... lazip.html
Looks like the OP got saved. http://shii.org/knows/WisCon,_the_Femin ... _self-hate
You will be shocked, SHOCKED! to find out who was right there, leading the online harrassment campaign against the blogger for that post.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... con-abuse/
I'm trying to figure out which one she is, in the original pictures! :popcorn:
Are you certain that there's only one?franc wrote:There's only one Elvira -Lsuoma wrote:If it raises Baboollie Blood Pressure, I'm all for it. Fuck 'em.bhoytony wrote:With all this masturbating over Sally James and Pan's People, I'm pretty sure that the Slymepit is surrounded by an angry mob of baboons preparing to burn it to the ground.
Personally I was more of a Janet Ellis wanker.
And though I was too young for The Avengers with Diana Rigg, I found her Emma Peel (M Appeal, geddit?) to be the epitome of teh sexy when I got older. From "A Touch of Brimstone":
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4tby ... o1_500.jpg
Snake picture chosen for Phil's benefit...
http://snarkerati.com/galleries/index.p ... ion=resize
Are you certain that there's only one?Dick Strawkins wrote:
http://snarkerati.com/galleries/index.p ... ion=resize
Hmmm... do they really go outside their own protected bubble that much to dogpile and harass people? My impression is that they mostly keep all of the smearing and campaigning on their own home turf, where they hold the banhammer and can control the narrative to fit the story they are trying to pitch. From what I've seen, the FC is the ones getting dogpiled whenever they venture outside of their blogs, outside of their FTB bubble, their support is more or less zero, so they very seldom do it.Dick Strawkins wrote:There is one difference - the Slymepit is immune from the sort of dogpiling blackmail to which many big name atheists are susceptible.
Just look at Hemant at 'The Friendly Atheist' and all the trouble he received, via Marcotte/Skepchicks, from his early post on Elevatorgate.
Look at Justin Griffiths at FTB. Look at Daniel Fincke and his attempt to prevent personal insults on his blog.
How many FTB supporters turn up here to argue - it's just oolon, isn't it?
Why is that?
