Exposing the stupidity, lies, and hypocrisy of Social Justice Warriors since July 2012
http://slymepit.com/phpbb/
OK I will bite. Why not? What is the issue here?Steersman wrote: PZ probably wouldn't be caught dead with a cat for a house pet as otherwise I expect Jerry Coyne would never let him hear the end of it ...
PZ pretends to, or really does, hate cats. So, when Coyne shows funny or cute cat vids on Saturdays as 'Caturday', PZ will post and 'Anti-Caturday' other animal. I think he's trying to be funny. Don't quit your day job, ass prof!AndrewV69 wrote:OK I will bite. Why not? What is the issue here?Steersman wrote: PZ probably wouldn't be caught dead with a cat for a house pet as otherwise I expect Jerry Coyne would never let him hear the end of it ...
Uh oh, this looks like a valid spam deletion. I'll have to figure out how to do it.Mr Danksworth wrote:Bot alert.
I can't figure out how to delete the 2 spam posts, and I can't figure out how to disable that spambot user from further posts.Scented Nectar wrote:Uh oh, this looks like a valid spam deletion. I'll have to figure out how to do it.Mr Danksworth wrote:Bot alert.
Dont look at me!Scented Nectar wrote:I can't figure out how to delete the 2 spam posts, and I can't figure out how to disable that spambot user from further posts.Scented Nectar wrote:Uh oh, this looks like a valid spam deletion. I'll have to figure out how to do it.Mr Danksworth wrote:Bot alert.
If Abbie or Sacha can figure it out, that would be great. I think I'm a little too scared to fuck with things in the administration panel. I clicked onto different tabs, but couldn't find anything from glancing at those.
Seeing as it is a feminist theory I suspect you may have a bit of difficulty finding anyone outside of that circle jerk discussing it.Mr Danksworth wrote:I'm being a glutton for punishment and looking into feminist intersectionality theory. Does anyone have any links to discussions of the theory outside of the femishpere?
So we get people like Marcott loudly proclaiming that any charge brought by a woman should be assumed to be true (thus the trial is all about determining punishment) and not to determine guilt or innocence if a man is alleged to be the perpetrator.Intersectionality is a feminist sociological theory first highlighted by Kimberlé Crenshaw (1989). Intersectionality is a methodology of studying "the relationships among multiple dimensions and modalities of social relationships and subject formations" (McCall 2005). The theory suggests—and seeks to examine how—various biological, social and cultural categories such as gender, race, class, ability, sexual orientation, and other axes of identity interact on multiple and often simultaneous levels, contributing to systematic social inequality. Intersectionality holds that the classical conceptualizations of oppression within society, such as racism, sexism, homophobia, and religion-based bigotry, do not act independently of one another; instead, these forms of oppression interrelate, creating a system of oppression that reflects the "intersection" of multiple forms of discrimination. [1]
I am reasonably certain I have mentioned Critical Theory before, well Critical Legal Theory is going to take that one step further (already has according to some people) look into the activities of Catherine Ann MacKinnon for example.The word “intersectionality†comes out of a metaphor coined by the critical legal theorist Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw to explain how race oppression and gender oppression interact in Black women’s lives.
http://www.sfu.ca/iirp/ibpa.htmlThe Institute for Intersectionality Research and Policy anchors a vibrant interdisciplinary community of scholars, researchers and students who have moved to the forefront of intersectional scholarship in Canada. The Institute provides opportunities to collaborate with other organizations, Centres, and Institutes at SFU and beyond who are developing intersectionality as a framework for health research and policy.
BTW, having moved to BC from Ontario, I am under the impression that effective and timely delivery of health care services in BC, is in a worse state that in Ontario (I am involved in volunteer community work so I have seen some of the issues first hand).There is growing recognition that governments should be evaluated by their ability to deliver and implement policy that can correct power imbalances and address differential and distributional health impacts including avoidable, inequitable and unjust differences in the health of diverse groups of people. An intersectionality-based policy analysis (IBPA) Framework has been developed to improve upon current Health Impact Asessment (HIAs) tools and frameworks. This volume provides an overview of the IBPA Framework and brings together scholars who have developed and applied this innovative policy analysis approach to complex health issues in and beyond British Columbia, Canada. The collection demonstrates the ways in which IBPA may be used by diverse policy actors who seek to tackle health inequities when making health and health-relat- ed decisions at the level of policy and programming.
haha!Michael K Gray wrote: (Sacha: Now you know how Penny feels in the Big Bang Theory?)
That's OK... we can all "foe" the bot... problem solved until the next one.Scented Nectar wrote:I can't figure out how to delete the 2 spam posts, and I can't figure out how to disable that spambot user from further posts.Scented Nectar wrote:Uh oh, this looks like a valid spam deletion. I'll have to figure out how to do it.Mr Danksworth wrote:Bot alert.
If Abbie or Sacha can figure it out, that would be great. I think I'm a little too scared to fuck with things in the administration panel. I clicked onto different tabs, but couldn't find anything from glancing at those.
Good stuff.. The description of his father's and grandfather's lives reminded me of this interview with a old-timer MRA.Saint N. wrote:From the people that brought you "This is Atheism +"
If you were to give a state of the union address on the condition of modern men, what would some of the highlights be?
Unlike a lot of guys who hang around with “Men’s Rights†types, I’m far more positive about the condition of modern men than most of them. A lot of men are leading longer, healthier, lives than the average man ever has before in history. We have what is from a historic perspective a miraculous level of health care available to us. The modern world is full of convenience, and comfort, and simple survival is no longer the real challenge that it used to be for a lot of men.
I also think men have a great deal more freedom regarding life choices – if they choose to exercise that freedom – than the average man has in the past. The social changes of the past half-century have made the provider role optional for men. We are now free to choose lower stress ways to make a living and pursue that “work-life balance†which is one of the favorite buzzwords of our contemporary culture.
Modern communications technology has made ignorance of any subject a choice – the internet alone puts far more information resources at anyone’s fingertips than even huge university libraries had when I was growing up. Transportation technology gives us mobility that was only dreamed of barely a century ago. I can literally get to almost any part of the world in a few hours – instead a few weeks or months. The real barrier today to a man’s horizons is his motivation, drive, and interest – compared to times past when the simple act of traveling a few hundred miles was arduous and challenging.
And, something which a lot of people don’t think about is the fact that there are fewer men from the United States – both in terms of raw numbers or as a percentage of the population – who are walking around crippled or mutilated as a result of war than at probably any time in the past; certainly in the past 150 years or so.
Statistics and factoids, unfortunately, do not do a very good job of capturing a sense of what an environment is really like. To try to illustrate what social conditions were like in the past compared to today, I like to use the example of building the Panama Canal. Approximately 25,000 men died during its construction. Now, try to imagine for a moment what social conditions must have been like for so many men to find it attractive to take that kind of risk with their lives. How many men do you know today who would volunteer to head off to the jungle and face a high probability of death? The pressures going on in the lives of those men are probably beyond anything we can imagine today.
Or, take the “White Feather†campaign. Imagine being so sensitive to social pressure that having a woman hand you a white feather would be shameful enough that you would sign up to go to war in order to avoid it. I think a lot of men today, probably most if we are talking about younger men, would say “Take that feather and shove it where the sun don’t shine.â€
Or, consider the “Mormon Migration.†Between 1846 and 1868, thousands of people made the arduous 1300-mile journey from Nauvoo, Illinois (or Independence, Missouri) to the area of Salt Lake City, Utah. Many made the trek on foot pushing the sum total of their worldly possessions in a handcart. Many perished along the way.
Imagine a life so hard and hopeless that walking a thousand miles or more dragging everything you own in a handcart was an attractive alternative. Then look around at the life you lead today and try to tell me with a straight face that you don’t have things pretty darned good.
Hey, spammers! SPEED it up a little!ERV wrote:Me and scented keeping the spam at bay:
[youtube]
I don't care for so-called "dictionary feminists". When established feminism doesn't look anything like what the dictionary would have one believe, which should I go by? If someone wants to call themselves a feminist, have at it. I'm not going to adopt and promote a label based on some lay person's subjective perception of it, however. And I'm not going to stop criticizing it because someone believes feminism is nothing more than "The radical notion that women are people too." Fuck, I believe women are people too! There's nothing new or radical about that. I support women's rights, and I do it just fine without adopting bullshit "theories".Dick Strawkins wrote: James, the issue I would take with your current stance is that it doesn't take into account the case of "dictionary feminism".
Dictionary feminism is the basic one line description of feminism that most people will give if asked to define it. It goes something like: "feminism is the call for women to be given equal treatment in terms of job and wage opportunities, employment and other basic human rights."
In other words it is a description for humanism as applied to women, and as such it's the sort of stance that most people, whether MRAs or otherwise, accept.
Now I realize the problem is that your opposition to feminism doesn't entail an opposition to the "dictionary feminism" I've just described and, instead, is really an opposition to political feminism (patriarchy theory, rape culture, male privilege, etc), but I think it's worth noting, just in case you are accused of being in favor of withholding basic human rights from women.
People, our overlords! (wouldn't have them any other way).ERV wrote:Dont look at me!Scented Nectar wrote:I can't figure out how to delete the 2 spam posts, and I can't figure out how to disable that spambot user from further posts.Scented Nectar wrote:Uh oh, this looks like a valid spam deletion. I'll have to figure out how to do it.Mr Danksworth wrote:Bot alert.
If Abbie or Sacha can figure it out, that would be great. I think I'm a little too scared to fuck with things in the administration panel. I clicked onto different tabs, but couldn't find anything from glancing at those.
http://anongallery.org/img/4/3/i-have-n ... -doing.jpg
LOL!
Uh oh. Sacha? Help?The Pelagic Argosy wrote:Hey, spammers! SPEED it up a little!ERV wrote:Me and scented keeping the spam at bay:
[youtube]
Sorry to hear that, I hope you pull through. Darwinspeed!Zhu Wuneng wrote:Hey, just wanted to say, it was cool talkin with y'all. I have some very serious family and work issues cropping up right now, so I can't really justify allotting time to recreational arguing, much as I love it. Maybe next year! Peace.
??? Something does not compute. Maybe due to some different, incongruent or false interpretations of the word “sheeshâ€:AndrewV69 wrote:Oh FFS!Steersman wrote:
“sheesh†yourself ... :-)
I just got an idea for a blind date service ... I can just see it, match up a you what with a you know what.
Considering that I suffixed my comment with a smiley, I would think either of the first two possibilities would have been the most reasonable interpretations ....sheesh (shsh) interj.
Used to express mild annoyance, surprise, or disgust.
Interesting video there – thanks.JackRayner wrote:Don't know if any of y'all are familiar, but there was a debate that a feminist was trying to set up, titled "Has Feminism Gone Too Far?" The original planner started receiving a bunch of hate and threats from feminists, and so she called it off. It's known that it was feminists sending the threats, and yet the popular lie is that it was the MRAs, and it's even spread onto that junk-site "Jezebel". Anyways, here's the lasted [and most telling] update on that;
[youtube]t5ufzpiWbBM[/youtube]
Seriously though, I'm getting to the point where I'm just about done being charitable to any feminist's argument... Why bother?
I'm reminded of an old joke. Do the jokes involve the line "may I push in your stool for you?"mordacious1 wrote:Of course, this won't any since one that spam gets deleted but,
when I was in High School, I had a friend who called his dads new wife the "step stool". It became a meme with a lot of really dirty jokes involved. I think the jokes got him through having to live with her for two years.
It could be worse. At least the menz aren't trying to run the line. We'd only be worse.ERV wrote:Me and scented keeping the spam at bay:
[youtube]8NPzLBSBzPI[/youtube]
Been looking to buy one of those, but so far, no luck – obviously, at least in the view of some. You have any ideas? E-bay perhaps? [Someone sold his soul there some time ago, so an estate sale of a sense of humour is a possibility.] Or maybe go to Helen Hunt whom, I’ve been told, has many things of that nature in her bag-of-tricks? .... :-)Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Steersman, oh my Steersman:Steersman wrote:I guess then that the poll you refer to is among the other 3% ....Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Polls show that 97% of statistics are made up bullshit.
But while I’ll agree that statistics can certainly be misused – as might even be the case with those on the incidence of rape – it seems that the benefits derived from the discipline and the science are pervasive if not profound ....
Buy a sense of humour.
Oh, come on now! You're taking the piss, aren't you?But in the absence of an emoticon or two one might at least be forgiven for thinking your comment had a serious motivation for it.
Simply put, when a self-proclaimed feminist claims they're for "equality", I'm not going to be giving them the benefit of the doubt...Steersman wrote:Interesting video there – thanks.JackRayner wrote:
Seriously though, I'm getting to the point where I'm just about done being charitable to any feminist's argument... Why bother?
As for “being charitable to any feminist’s argumentâ€? Maybe because that “any†covers a lot of ground [all of it] and that there might actually be some feminists who might actually be brought back from the “dark side†by actually addressing their arguments honestly. For instance, even the infamous Sally Strange has conceded that “the few isolated good points that MRAs have are indeed good pointsâ€, although she seems frequently to forget that she has done so - and in spite of frequent reminding …. Rome wasn’t built in a day and all that ….
But , after all, none of us can claim to be omniscient, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, at least to maintain any claim to sanity ...
Not really; I clearly remember thinking you quite possibly had a serious intent to your comment. Seems to me that people should be thinking that using the Internet for conversations is very much like being autistic – no visual cues from faces and body language to confirm the interpretations that many of us take for granted based on familiarity and experience .... privilege and all that ...Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Oh, come on now! You're taking the piss, aren't you?But in the absence of an emoticon or two one might at least be forgiven for thinking your comment had a serious motivation for it.
Would you really take the statement "Polls show that 97% of statistics are made up bullshit." as serious? Because if so, I have to question your skepticism. This meme has been going around the net for a while. And the enormity of it alone should give you a cue.Steersman wrote:Not really; I clearly remember thinking you quite possibly had a serious intent to your comment. Seems to me that people should be thinking that using the Internet for conversations is very much like being autistic – no visual cues from faces and body language to confirm the interpretations that many of us take for granted based on familiarity and experience .... privilege and all that ...Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Oh, come on now! You're taking the piss, aren't you?But in the absence of an emoticon or two one might at least be forgiven for thinking your comment had a serious motivation for it.
I certainly am not prepared to “give them the benefit of the doubt†as there are, obviously, more than a few of them who are totally off the wall and out to lunch. In which case it is entirely acceptable to be asking where they are coming from and which of the many feminist ideologies they happen to subscribe to. But that is, I think, quite a bit different from “not being charitable to any feminist’s argumentâ€.JackRayner wrote:Simply put, when a self-proclaimed feminist claims they're for "equality", I'm not going to be giving them the benefit of the doubt...Steersman wrote:Interesting video there – thanks.JackRayner wrote:
Seriously though, I'm getting to the point where I'm just about done being charitable to any feminist's argument... Why bother?
As for “being charitable to any feminist’s argumentâ€? Maybe because that “any†covers a lot of ground [all of it] and that there might actually be some feminists who might actually be brought back from the “dark side†by actually addressing their arguments honestly. For instance, even the infamous Sally Strange has conceded that “the few isolated good points that MRAs have are indeed good pointsâ€, although she seems frequently to forget that she has done so - and in spite of frequent reminding …. Rome wasn’t built in a day and all that ….
But , after all, none of us can claim to be omniscient, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, at least to maintain any claim to sanity ...
Reminds me of having given an ex-girlfriend a book titled “Pornography for Womenâ€. And in it were a bunch of captioned photos of men in no-more revealing or obscene poses than a no-shirt or open-shirt pose. And the captions from the guys were things like “I can watch the Super Bowl anytime; it’s more important that we watch The Bridges of Madison County togetherâ€. And, “Let’s invite your mother over to stay as long as she wantsâ€. And, “As long as I have two legs, you’ll never have to take out the garbage again.†....AndrewV69 wrote:This is a "Chill Girl". Right?
Video: _i9w4SF6qfU
Her channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/emilyhart?feature=watch
Have I mentioned how much I adore her?James Onen wrote:Seeing as we're on the topic of 'dictionary' feminism vs. gender feminism...
[youtube]3o-OcTSeVcs[/youtube]
8-)
I don't know. I think it's this cartoon in blog format.Dick Strawkins wrote:What was the point of that post by Chris Clarke?Gumby wrote:franc wrote:If the name was hidden, there's simply no way to differentiate the gibberish of the big baboon and his shitlick accomplice -
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... smandmras/
You know that after the Thunderf00t episode, there was no way in hell Peezus would let anyone in who didn't goosestep to FTB/A+ radfem dogma. Especially someone he lets write on his own blog.
I thought he was brought on board by Peezuz to write some more environmentally orientated articles. This current one is like PZ-lite on social justice warrior mode. He complains about MRAs not recognizing evidence and neglects to add any evidence of his own to the entire post. I guess it was more a rant about MRAs in general but it's a silly idea to complain about others not accepting evidence when all you are offering yourself is a whiney anecdote.
No, I did not take the statement itself as serious; I recognized the hyperbole in it. Part of my reason for my “the other 3%†comment which I should have tagged with a smiley instead of the, I thought, equivalent ellipsis [...]; mea culpa.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Would you really take the statement "Polls show that 97% of statistics are made up bullshit." as serious? Because if so, I have to question your skepticism. This meme has been going around the net for a while. And the enormity of it alone should give you a cue.Steersman wrote:Not really; I clearly remember thinking you quite possibly had a serious intent to your comment. Seems to me that people should be thinking that using the Internet for conversations is very much like being autistic – no visual cues from faces and body language to confirm the interpretations that many of us take for granted based on familiarity and experience .... privilege and all that ...Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Oh, come on now! You're taking the piss, aren't you?But in the absence of an emoticon or two one might at least be forgiven for thinking your comment had a serious motivation for it.
Posh girl. Bet she has a pink VW Beetle parked outside.AndrewV69 wrote:This is a "Chill Girl". Right?
[youtube]_i9w4SF6qfU[/youtube]
Her channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/emilyhart?feature=watch
Let me reassure you there was no intent other than humour. Now, if you want to blow it out of proportion, that's your privilege (haha). I have nothing to say about this statistics discussion as I've said my bit a year ago on Abbie's thread. If you're interested, go look for it. If not, let's move on.Steersman wrote:No, I did not take the statement itself as serious; I recognized the hyperbole in it. Part of my reason for my “the other 3%†comment which I should have tagged with a smiley instead of the, I thought, equivalent ellipsis [...]; mea culpa.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Would you really take the statement "Polls show that 97% of statistics are made up bullshit." as serious? Because if so, I have to question your skepticism. This meme has been going around the net for a while. And the enormity of it alone should give you a cue.Steersman wrote:Not really; I clearly remember thinking you quite possibly had a serious intent to your comment. Seems to me that people should be thinking that using the Internet for conversations is very much like being autistic – no visual cues from faces and body language to confirm the interpretations that many of us take for granted based on familiarity and experience .... privilege and all that ...Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Oh, come on now! You're taking the piss, aren't you?But in the absence of an emoticon or two one might at least be forgiven for thinking your comment had a serious motivation for it.
But what I was questioning – and responding to – was the apparent intent behind it: considering that the only context for your comment that seemed relevant was my previous comment to MKG, I thought your comment was an attempt to “take the piss out of itâ€, i.e., to “mock, tease, ridicule or scoff at†the serious nature of the discussion, to wit, the benefits of understanding how a certain “low†frequency of supposed rapes can lead to a fairly large portion of the population which has been exposed to that type of assault ....
As for the “meme going around the net for a whileâ€, apart from noting that the net is a very large and inhomogeneous place and that not everyone is familiar with every last crook and nanny in it, that is indeed unfortunate and probably contributes not a little to some inappropriate “hyper-skepticism†about the subject in question. A “false negativeâ€, if I’m not mistaken ....
I'm online via the phone. I'll have a look when I'm with the computer.Scented Nectar wrote:I can't figure out how to delete the 2 spam posts, and I can't figure out how to disable that spambot user from further posts.Scented Nectar wrote:Uh oh, this looks like a valid spam deletion. I'll have to figure out how to do it.Mr Danksworth wrote:Bot alert.
If Abbie or Sacha can figure it out, that would be great. I think I'm a little too scared to fuck with things in the administration panel. I clicked onto different tabs, but couldn't find anything from glancing at those.
MATRIARCHY!!! (good night again)sacha wrote:I'm online via the phone. I'll have a look when I'm with the computer.Scented Nectar wrote:I can't figure out how to delete the 2 spam posts, and I can't figure out how to disable that spambot user from further posts.Scented Nectar wrote:Uh oh, this looks like a valid spam deletion. I'll have to figure out how to do it.Mr Danksworth wrote:Bot alert.
If Abbie or Sacha can figure it out, that would be great. I think I'm a little too scared to fuck with things in the administration panel. I clicked onto different tabs, but couldn't find anything from glancing at those.
get your twisted panties in order. The cunt who shuns underpants is going to take care of it.Scented Nectar wrote:In the voice of Ricky Ricardo calling "Luuuucccccyyyyy", I have to say, Lsssuuuuoooommmaaaaaaa, what have you done putting me in charge!??!?!?!?
HAHAHA!ERV wrote:Me and scented keeping the spam at bay:
[youtube]8NPzLBSBzPI[/youtube]
Yay! And everything they say about blonds is a lie!sacha wrote:I'm online via the phone. I'll have a look when I'm with the computer.
Um, I'm not wearing any either. :Psacha wrote:get your twisted panties in order. The cunt who shuns underpants is going to take care of it.Scented Nectar wrote:In the voice of Ricky Ricardo calling "Luuuucccccyyyyy", I have to say, Lsssuuuuoooommmaaaaaaa, what have you done putting me in charge!??!?!?!?
Um, I'm not wearing any either. :P[/quote]Scented Nectar wrote:
get your twisted panties in order. The cunt who shuns underpants is going to take care of it.
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:... Now, if you want to blow it out of proportion, that's your privilege (haha).Steersman wrote: ...
No, I did not take the statement itself as serious; I recognized the hyperbole in it. Part of my reason for my “the other 3%†comment which I should have tagged with a smiley instead of the, I thought, equivalent ellipsis [...]; mea culpa.
But what I was questioning – and responding to – was the apparent intent behind it: considering that the only context for your comment that seemed relevant was my previous comment to MKG, I thought your comment was an attempt to “take the piss out of itâ€, i.e., to “mock, tease, ridicule or scoff at†the serious nature of the discussion, to wit, the benefits of understanding how a certain “low†frequency of supposed rapes can lead to a fairly large portion of the population which has been exposed to that type of assault ....
As for the “meme going around the net for a whileâ€, apart from noting that the net is a very large and inhomogeneous place and that not everyone is familiar with every last crook and nanny in it, that is indeed unfortunate and probably contributes not a little to some inappropriate “hyper-skepticism†about the subject in question. A “false negativeâ€, if I’m not mistaken ....
May do so. Although the question was raised again in the context of Justicar’s recent video on the topic and I and others may have further things to say on it, particularly as it seems to be part of the ongoing battle with various feminists ....I have nothing to say about this statistics discussion as I've said my bit a year ago on Abbie's thread. If you're interested, go look for it. If not, let's move on.
It's alright. Flannel pajamas are keeping me from getting aThe Pelagic Argosy wrote:Don't get a chill, girl! :lol:Scented Nectar wrote: Um, I'm not wearing any either. :P
Are you on your period and need the panties so that the pads have something to attach to?cunt wrote:Am I the only one actually wearing their panties. FFS.
Whose? Dude, creepy...cunt wrote:Am I the only one actually wearing their panties. FFS.
And all this time I thought it had something to do with bacterias and gases. They must hire mice of varying sizes.Spence wrote: (With notpologies to drimble at b3ta. Hell, so many others have stolen this I figured one more time wouldn't matter)
SHHHHHHScented Nectar wrote:Yay! And everything they say about blonds is a lie!sacha wrote:I'm online via the phone. I'll have a look when I'm with the computer.
So. You’re infallible then and never make any mistakes? Cool – sounds like a real privilege. But a great many of the rest of us have to kind of shoot from the hip now and again and then correct our aims afterwards through apologies and the like ....AnonymousCowherd wrote:The time to correct this is minutes before posting it (or otherwise making a public goose of yourself), not later, after your friends point out that you've made a huge floater.Steersman wrote: And she apparently corrected the mistake about Galileo “within minutes†of having posted the offending YouTube video.
She may well have more than a few “sins†to “atone†for, but making mountains out of molehills doesn’t seem to reflect terribly well on those doing so. Particularly in comparison to some of the rather more egregious cases in this neck of the woods, notably WoolyBumblebee’s plagiarism ....
“People who live in glass houses ....â€; “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam [log] that is in thine own eye?†....And what the hell do Wooly's actions have to do with Becky's?
Ah, no wonder you have an interest in camouflage clothing, panties apparently excluded ... ;-)sacha wrote:SHHHHHHScented Nectar wrote:Yay! And everything they say about blonds is a lie!sacha wrote:I'm online via the phone. I'll have a look when I'm with the computer.
Don't EVER say that again.
Don't forget "Angry Vagina Craft Time" workshopThe Pelagic Argosy wrote:Weren't you talking about those "workshops" in those old school womyn's dos that you used to go to? I hate to see a perfectly practical and useful word like "workshop" abused in this way—not to mention the abuse of the word "work" itself (although I guess "shop" fits if there is a sulkyramics stall or such involved). I suppose the "work" in "workshop" is the same word that the likes of Prunella and Gen. McWrong use in regard to their daily pottering on the internet (in between the highs and lows of doing little happy dances and bouts of weeping).Scented Nectar wrote:Argghhh... http://www.skepticon.org/schedule/ has (vague) workshops! I'm breaking out in hives just thinking about it. Didn't we talk about those things last week or something? :shock:
