Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

Old subthreads
Locked
Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2761

Post by Lsuoma »

windy wrote:
Lsuoma wrote:When I get back home today I'll be setting up a separate forum where I will give my reason for the ban. I will unban Eucliwood (and notify her), but grant her access to post to ONLY that forum, unmoderated. Everyone will be able to join in the discussion, but I myself will respond only to posts which demonstrate that the facts on which I based my decision to ban were false. Otherwise I will not participate.
That sounds fair. I get your concern, but banning someone for undisclosed reasons seemed too contrary to the spirit of the 'pit.
Exactly why I am glad, given permission, to be able to publish personal details explaining my reasons.

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2762

Post by Scented Nectar »

katamari Damassi wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote: I think that's why PZ was able to mention that he's had women plus one gay man try to pick him up at conferences and no one said boo to that. That would have been slut shaming the women or gays, and they knew it. Yet they have opposite rules when the sexes are flipped and it's a man offering sex to a woman. Then the man becomes a potential rapist and/or creep.
Someone solicited sex from PZ Myers? Do you think they were attracted to his rugged good looks, his white hot charisma, or his charming personality?

Wait. Were these prostitutes?
Well, so PZ claims, anyways. He said a number of women and even a man has come on to him at conferences. As for the prostitutes, he's probably on a banned blacklist of clients. "Avoid this guy. he wants you to don a blue wig and then...[ :shock: ]...which should cost a fortune, right? But then he won't pay even a basic rate, says he's waiting to strike it rich in the blogosphere and he'll get back to you. Blacklist Rating: nutter and thief"

Cunning Punt
.
.
Posts: 1335
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:50 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2763

Post by Cunning Punt »

Mykeru wrote:
justinvacula wrote:The fundraiser launched to help send me to the upcoming Women in Secularism 2 conference has reached its goal thanks to 24 generous donors who, in total, contributed $1500 with 28 days remaining for the project!

http://skepticink.com/justinvacula/2013 ... -goal-met/

Thanks to all of those whom Stephanie Zvan apparently wants me to renounce...helping to send the 'wrong man' to the Women in Secularism 2 conference can surely now be added to list of horrible things about this community/forum.
Now, remember my prediction here.

Everyone knew that Melody Hensley, et. al. would put out feelers to determine the best way to block your attendance, even thought it would be the stupidest thing they could do. They just can't help being petty.

Now that you have met your goal, they will still block your attendance but in a way to

1. Maximize drama, playing victim and working the threat narrative.

2. Block you at the door, metaphorically if not literally (see #1). This will also serve to waste your time and cause you to expend funds. The goal, being petty, would not be served by turning you away before you left. This way you get all the time, trouble, expense, the TSA anal search, bad airplane food, lost luggage, a big freaking hole in your wallet and get turned away regardless.

Place your bets.
Justin, get legal advice, make sure you have Ron Lindsay's agreement that you should be able to attend, and maybe get his cell #.

And lose the 'stache :twisted:

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=249

jimthepleb
.
.
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:54 am
Location: you kay?

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2764

Post by jimthepleb »

Lsuoma wrote:
jjbinx007 wrote:
Lsuoma wrote: I think you're probably referring to the tweets that caused me to ban her.
Indeed. I think you're caught between a rock and a hard place right now.
I am. BTW, the information I'll be sharing is open for discussion, but the decision to ban rests solely with me. I value the opinion of many here, which is why I've decided to share the information now that Eucliwood has given explicit permission, and it can't be considered doc dropping.
If Eucliwoo-woo is a minor can she 'give explicit permission' without the intervention of her parents?

jjbinx007
.
.
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 7:16 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2765

Post by jjbinx007 »

My vote: Ban Eucliwood until she's 18.

Submariner
.
.
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:05 pm
Location: Florida, US of A
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2766

Post by Submariner »

Scented Nectar wrote:
Submariner wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:Have I mentioned that I love doing that reversal of the sexes thing on situations, to see how the reaction would differ? It often reveals so much! :)
"The Patriarchy hurts menz too."
Which patriarchy? The imaginary western conspiracy one of thought crimes and over-indulged-in fears? Or the few remaining REAL patriarchies (theocratic countries whose religious laws and social customs really are oppressive of, and unequal towards, women)?

Now then, let's try...
"The Matriarchy hurts womenz too." Yep, feminists try to run other women's sex lives, telling them they are not consenting when the woman knows damn well she was. Eg; drunk sex being said to always be rape. Another eg: Willing workers in the sex industry (dancing, prostitution, porn acting, phone sex operators, etc) are told by many feminists that they are raped every time they do their job.

Feminists want to control other people's sexual transaction choices. Some consider all sex with men rape, but outside of those ones, even moderate radfems try and control the transaction choice. If you are trading sexual pleasure for sexual pleasure, they are fine with that. If you are trading sexual pleasure for a promise of monogamy, they are fine with that. However, a fun drinking night ending in a fun one night stand of trading sexual pleasure for sexual pleasure? Nope! Rape rape! Even though he was drunk too, they won't say the woman raped the man, but if she was drunk (and I don't mean passed out), it get's called rape. Women are not allowed to consent to that, since the feminists won't believe her consent. She was brainwashed or doesn't know any better. She needs rescuing. Same story for sex work. Most feminists believe there is no way to consent to sex work, so it is all rape. Even if a woman carefully draws up her business plan, advertises and runs everything herself. Nope, she was raped. Sex for money transaction not allowed, unless it's in the form of already bought items, such as wedding rings, expensive dinners, a house, car, etc. Cash itself MAY be acceptable only in the form of financial support or allowance IF she is also living with him.
Preach it Sister!

ummm-hmmm

another lurker
.
.
Posts: 4740
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:39 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2767

Post by another lurker »

Scented Nectar wrote:
Submariner wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:Have I mentioned that I love doing that reversal of the sexes thing on situations, to see how the reaction would differ? It often reveals so much! :)
"The Patriarchy hurts menz too."
Which patriarchy? The imaginary western conspiracy one of thought crimes and over-indulged-in fears? Or the few remaining REAL patriarchies (theocratic countries whose religious laws and social customs really are oppressive of, and unequal towards, women)?
Bolded mine. That's the thing, and this is how I believe the FTBers manage to sucker in noobies such as myself. As a casual reader/poster at FTB, I just assumed that they were talking about the REAL PATRIARCHY and not the imaginary conspiracy one. So, when they said horrible things about MRA's and the Slymepit, I once again, wrongly assumed, that the pit and MRA's were *suppporting* misogynist fucks like Rick Santorum and Todd Akin. The thing is, since they lump anyone who disagrees with them into the same basket, it's really difficult to discern truth from propaganda unless you look deeper. So yeah, I was an 'unquestioning' supporter, at the start, b/c who *would* want to take away women's rights, or subjugate anyone who is not a cis-white-male?

Now if only more people would visit the pit, and see that it's a nice place...

And in the end I do think that they will burn themselves out. They are too hostile to newcomers, and their 'movement' will only shrink, not grow. I also suspect that in the broader spectrum, most modern 'feminists', are more likely to be funfems than radfems. Millenials want to enjoy sex, and enjoy men, not sit in a corner hating everyone who says bad words!

Angry_Drunk
.
.
Posts: 458
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 12:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2768

Post by Angry_Drunk »

jjbinx007 wrote:My vote: Ban Eucliwood until she's 18.
And how, pray tell, are we to determine when "she" reaches 18 when we can't even be certain "she" is a minor to begin with.

jimthepleb
.
.
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:54 am
Location: you kay?

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2769

Post by jimthepleb »

<---- I got it back....now leave it alone!
Damn I am far more handsome than I remember!

Parge
.
.
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:18 am

Re: "Deep Rifts!"

#2770

Post by Parge »

LMU wrote:
...

They think they can force the point, that's why the ultimatums. I think this is actually progress, they have named terms under which they would actually speak to a slymepitter. They are ridiculous unreasonable terms, but it means that it can be done in principle. They could have interpreted the offer as a threat (as has been done in the past), dismissed it out of hand, or ignored it entirely. Note that different baboons might have different terms, and a lesser baboon might actually have reasonable terms (either because they have more to gain by the exposure such a discussion would give them, or because they aren't actually a true believer).
The terms under which they (Steffie) would actually speak to a slymepitter are that the person renounce the slymepit, and as a result no longer be considered a slymepitter. The terms under which they (Steffie) would actually speak to a slymepitter is if they weren't a slymepitter. Therefore there are no terms under which they (Steffie) would actually speak to a slymepitter.

I really doubt common ground can be found if only one party is willing to find it. Baboons are all too willing to misconstrue and politicize every communication. It's really pointless to try to refute their claims that the pit is full of rape apologists and misogynists, fallacious as they are. Even encouraging them to come here and find out for themselves will fail to undermine their prejudice. Their senses are so attuned to find offence that the frank (franc?), ribald, laissez faire nature of this stream of opinion and evidence will only further entrench their misguided opinions.

Mind you, I'm not advocating abandoning this little klatch of ours. I'm just trying to nip any optimism in the bud. You can't really clean up this mess. You're better off putting a fence around it and warning other people away.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2771

Post by Lsuoma »

Angry_Drunk wrote:
jjbinx007 wrote:My vote: Ban Eucliwood until she's 18.
And how, pray tell, are we to determine when "she" reaches 18 when we can't even be certain "she" is a minor to begin with.
And this is why she has a very hard row to hoe.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2772

Post by Lsuoma »

Lsuoma wrote:
Angry_Drunk wrote:
jjbinx007 wrote:My vote: Ban Eucliwood until she's 18.
And how, pray tell, are we to determine when "she" reaches 18 when we can't even be certain "she" is a minor to begin with.
And this is why she has a very hard row to hoe.
To convince me to rescind the ban.

jimthepleb
.
.
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:54 am
Location: you kay?

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2773

Post by jimthepleb »

Lsuoma wrote:
Angry_Drunk wrote:
jjbinx007 wrote:My vote: Ban Eucliwood until she's 18.
And how, pray tell, are we to determine when "she" reaches 18 when we can't even be certain "she" is a minor to begin with.
And this is why she has a very hard row to hoe.
repeating my previous question lsuoma, can a minor give permission to release her info without her parents say so?
I've stayed out of this brouhaha until now, but it's beginning to look like she is some sort of agent provocateur.

Submariner
.
.
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:05 pm
Location: Florida, US of A
Contact:

Re: "Deep Rifts!"

#2774

Post by Submariner »

Parge wrote: I really doubt common ground can be found if only one party is willing to find it. Baboons are all too willing to misconstrue and politicize every communication. It's really pointless to try to refute their claims that the pit is full of rape apologists and misogynists, fallacious as they are. Even encouraging them to come here and find out for themselves will fail to undermine their prejudice. Their senses are so attuned to find offence that the frank (franc?), ribald, laissez faire nature of this stream of opinion and evidence will only further entrench their misguided opinions.
The point that they often make to the "privileged" yet refuse to see in themselves, is that if one views the world through a particular lens (biblical glasses?) then every piece of evidence, every innocuous post, every uttered thought not polarized in the same direction appears to that person as a validation of their worldview.

UnbelieveSteve
.
.
Posts: 185
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 11:37 pm
Location: Sydney Australia

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2775

Post by UnbelieveSteve »

Scented Nectar wrote:
jjbinx007 wrote:Ugh. What the fuck. I just read something on Eucli's twitter that I wished I hadn't.
Ugh. I think I just saw it too. Was it her chatting up the person with "pedophile" in their name, commiserating about pedophilia, and wanting them to email her?

I now think she's an undercover pedo entrapper. Either that or very fucking disturbed.
I just found it too. I think i'll steer clear of her if she returns. Block/ignore whatever it takes. She a fucken weird one.

Reap
.
.
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:27 pm
Location: Reno Nevada
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2776

Post by Reap »


acathode
.
.
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:46 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2777

Post by acathode »

Scented Nectar wrote:Women are not allowed to consent to that, since the feminists won't believe her consent. She was brainwashed or doesn't know any better.
The fucking scary thing is that you're not hyperbolic, this is actually how some of them thing and reason:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/taslima/201 ... mment-4765

Btw, that whole blog post was like the 2nd non-tf00t FTB post I ever read, and it so smock full of crazy that it needs a trigger warning for anyone suffering from nut allergy. It's also to only thing I've ever read by Taslima, so when posters here were talking about Taslima not being as crazy as the rest of the FC(n) shortly after I had signed up here, I was literally scratching my head. I mean, common...
Lsuoma wrote:
katamari Damassi wrote:
Lsuoma wrote:
jimthepleb wrote: Eucliwood is the first person banned permanently (i anticipate s/h/it's guest appearance in the next few hours).
Not true. Several incarnations of Mabus are banned, plus someone who posted what was indistinguishable from child porn (a picture of a girl of apparently 13 or 14 years of age with semen on her face.)
Was it ever determined that that was oolon? IIRC that same person posted a couple of really bad jokes about domestic violence. It reeked set up from the beginning.
No, I know who it was and had an email discussion with them about it. I genuinely believe it was a mistake on their part, but I could be wrong. Definitely not colon. He DOWNloaded it.
There were some other really sketchy shit going on with Oolon though, like the completely new poster who shortly after Oolon joined and started poster here showed up and after 3-4 posts went and doxxed Oolon (iirc from Oolons website/domainname info). IIRC though, you said that there was nothing linking the account with Oolon's, but in my book still sketchy as fuck.

Mykeru
.
.
Posts: 4758
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:52 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2778

Post by Mykeru »

Lsuoma wrote:
Angry_Drunk wrote:
jjbinx007 wrote:My vote: Ban Eucliwood until she's 18.
And how, pray tell, are we to determine when "she" reaches 18 when we can't even be certain "she" is a minor to begin with.
And this is why she has a very hard row to hoe.
Why are you agonizing over this?

You have a person who came in here posting in either an intentionally annoying and obsessive manner who then claims to be an underage girl who solicited dick pictures and sent weirdo slash/fic to someone so they could point to the weirdos the Pit houses, and then threatened to get the pedo-cops after anyone who didn't kiss their child/troll ass.

We have had enough people come in here with "What say to a woman with a black eye" crap, obviously intending to plant something in the forum that can be used to smear the membership in general. My first impression was that Eucli was intentionally trying to get themselves banned for serial spamming so they could run off and make a claim that The Pit was just as ban-happy as the Atheism Plus Forum.

This person did that and more. S/h/it pushed every botton it could reach.

Considering that being banned from this forum is nearly impossible, to me, makes the decision to actually ban someone when they have not only crossed the line from several direction, but pretty much circled the globe to cross it again, that much easier.

If you don't want to be the "bad guy" in this you can blame me. If s/h/it asked who did it just say, in time honored fashion, that I was to blame...

"Because he's the asshole The Pit deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector. A Mykeru."

[Cue Hans Zimmer]

Apples
.
.
Posts: 2406
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2779

Post by Apples »

acathode wrote:Btw, that whole blog post was like the 2nd non-tf00t FTB post I ever read, and it so smock full of crazy that it needs a trigger warning for anyone suffering from nut allergy. It's also to only thing I've ever read by Taslima, so when posters here were talking about Taslima not being as crazy as the rest of the FC(n) shortly after I had signed up here, I was literally scratching my head.
My fave picture from her post about "men hate woman's bodies" -
http://freethoughtblogs.com/taslima/fil ... having.jpg
OMG men make women bleeeeeed by forcing them to shave their legs!!!!

lurking coward

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2780

Post by lurking coward »

One of the most surreal exchanges I observed over at the A+sylum was where a creature called "Simpleflower" apparently misappropriated 'hugs' intended for another loon... er uh... marginalized being.

That Simpleflower is a real piece of work. She(?) describes herself as an "Autism Supremacist" and said that "super empathic autistics" such as herself were the "next step in evolution". In other words. The current strain of homo sapiens will be replaced with homo autisticus empathicus. The hilarious thing is howver this 'super empath' completely dismissed fellow loon "Kasianne" as not part of this evolutionary cutting edge and hence destined to go the way of the Dodo, and did so without irony. What empathy, lol!

Anyway, I wonder if any of the self described autistics over there have ever actually been diagnosed with the condition, or if it is just an attempt to make some claim to being "oppressed" or "marginalized". It's really weird; they talk about autistics over there like they're a race; autism identity politics. What a concept.

But I digress...

LMU
.
.
Posts: 617
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 7:40 am

Re: "Deep Rifts!"

#2781

Post by LMU »

Parge wrote:
LMU wrote:
...

They think they can force the point, that's why the ultimatums. I think this is actually progress, they have named terms under which they would actually speak to a slymepitter. They are ridiculous unreasonable terms, but it means that it can be done in principle. They could have interpreted the offer as a threat (as has been done in the past), dismissed it out of hand, or ignored it entirely. Note that different baboons might have different terms, and a lesser baboon might actually have reasonable terms (either because they have more to gain by the exposure such a discussion would give them, or because they aren't actually a true believer).
The terms under which they (Steffie) would actually speak to a slymepitter are that the person renounce the slymepit, and as a result no longer be considered a slymepitter. The terms under which they (Steffie) would actually speak to a slymepitter is if they weren't a slymepitter. Therefore there are no terms under which they (Steffie) would actually speak to a slymepitter.

I really doubt common ground can be found if only one party is willing to find it. Baboons are all too willing to misconstrue and politicize every communication. It's really pointless to try to refute their claims that the pit is full of rape apologists and misogynists, fallacious as they are. Even encouraging them to come here and find out for themselves will fail to undermine their prejudice. Their senses are so attuned to find offence that the frank (franc?), ribald, laissez faire nature of this stream of opinion and evidence will only further entrench their misguided opinions.

Mind you, I'm not advocating abandoning this little klatch of ours. I'm just trying to nip any optimism in the bud. You can't really clean up this mess. You're better off putting a fence around it and warning other people away.
Bolding mine. I think that's sort of the goal of interacting with them. Assume you never posted on A+, what do you learn about A+ers when you look at the various arguments on A+ leading to bans and suspensions? You might learn that they are horrible to well meaning people for no good reason, and that you want as little to do with them as possible. How can we do this with baboons in general? Show up to interact with them, be as reasonable as possible, and let them be themselves.

Submariner
.
.
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:05 pm
Location: Florida, US of A
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2782

Post by Submariner »

From PZ's latest :http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... -skeptics/
Stop right there! That’s exactly what I mean! Atheism deals with empirical claims and the promotion of science. It’s what we do. Look at Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett and Lawrence Krauss and Sam Harris and even me, although I’m not trying to rank myself in their same category: we talk and write about how religious claims fail to meet even the most minimal standards of evidence, how they fail to support their grandiose promises, how they cause harm and suffering to people. Seriously, you could take my last sentence and replace “religious claims” with “alt-med claims”, and you should be able to see that we’re doing exactly the same thing with different targets.
Hasn't it always been said that
science makes no comment on the supernatural
- http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? ... %28book%29 et al. (google "science makes no comment on the supernatural")

Seems like PeeZus is trying to change that.

Gefan
.
.
Posts: 2088
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:55 pm
Location: In a handbasket, apparently.

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2783

Post by Gefan »

My first impression of The Woo as also that "she" was, for whatever reason, trying to see what it would take to get banned.
As to what to do about her now, I don't have an opinion because:
a) I don't have all the facts that Lsuoma does.
b) It's not my board, I don't have skin in the game.
c) It's not me going to be getting a visit from the Party Van if we're dealing with an actual entrapment / crazed minor situation.
Lsuoma seems to be acting with responsibility and prudence. Let's step back and wait to see how it all shakes out.

Mykeru
.
.
Posts: 4758
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:52 am

Re: "Deep Rifts!"

#2784

Post by Mykeru »

Submariner wrote:From PZ's latest :http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... -skeptics/
Stop right there! That’s exactly what I mean! Atheism deals with empirical claims and the promotion of science. It’s what we do. Look at Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett and Lawrence Krauss and Sam Harris and even me, although I’m not trying to rank myself in their same category: we talk and write about how religious claims fail to meet even the most minimal standards of evidence, how they fail to support their grandiose promises, how they cause harm and suffering to people. Seriously, you could take my last sentence and replace “religious claims” with “alt-med claims”, and you should be able to see that we’re doing exactly the same thing with different targets.
Hasn't it always been said that
science makes no comment on the supernatural
- http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? ... %28book%29 et al. (google "science makes no comment on the supernatural")

Seems like PeeZus is trying to change that.
At first I was annoyed, but considering that's an attempt at the ever-expansive blob-like definition of atheism from the most non-critical atheist around, I will just be amused.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2785

Post by Lsuoma »

So here's how it shakes out after getting more legal advice from my sister-in-law, to whom I have just shown the tweets.

Her advice to me was stay the fuck as far away as possible. Keep the ban. Have nothing to do with anyone I suspect might be Eucliwood. Don't reply to any communications, but if I have any indication that she is trying to target me to go with her, my sister-in-law, to law enforcement and make a legal deposition. She said that while she is an attorney, she's not anyone else's attorney in this matter apart from mine, but she doubted any other competent attorney would give their client different advice in the same circumstances.

So, the posting I mentioned earlier is off. The ban stays in place, and I'm done with discussing the matter. You can do as you all see fit.

Submariner
.
.
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:05 pm
Location: Florida, US of A
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2786

Post by Submariner »

Gefan wrote:My first impression of The Woo as also that "she" was, for whatever reason, trying to see what it would take to get banned.
As to what to do about her now, I don't have an opinion because:
a) I don't have all the facts that Lsuoma does.
b) It's not my board, I don't have skin in the game.
c) It's not me going to be getting a visit from the Party Van if we're dealing with an actual entrapment / crazed minor situation.
Lsuoma seems to be acting with responsibility and prudence. Let's step back and wait to see how it all shakes out.

I thought we were an autonomous collective....

[youtube]-8bqQ-C1PSE[/youtube]

Mykeru
.
.
Posts: 4758
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:52 am

A Counter-Condition to Steffie

#2787

Post by Mykeru »

We should formulate a counter-condition to Steffie. Not where we agree to talk to her, but the baseline minimum that we require to take her seriously.

Example:

1. Agrees to Clifford's Creedo of Freethought ""It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence", and agrees that asking for evidence or rejecting claims based on insufficient evidence is what a freethinker and skeptic does. Asking for evidence will not be construed as indicating anything but skepticism and will not be used to assume another body of beliefs not at issue (racism, sexism, misogyny, etc).

Failure to abide by conditions, or rejection of them, is ipso facto recognition of our right to laugh snidely at her.

What other conditions?

Reap
.
.
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:27 pm
Location: Reno Nevada
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2788

Post by Reap »

Michael J wrote:
Reap wrote:To anyone concerned. I have made it clear to Lee Moore that no one person is qualified to speak for the slymepit. His lack of a better term referring to opposition of FTB was probably why there was some confusion. I wasn't aware that was the way it was being presented. I only speak for me and I have never claimed otherwise. I understand that some idiots are probably going to make the mistake of assuming anyone who is a member of this forum and speaks in public is speaking for the entire forum there isn't much can be done about that except make it clear that isn't the case.
How could anyone speak for the slymepit? We are so diverse that we can't talk about friggin' bread without having a fight.
Exactly.

Mykeru
.
.
Posts: 4758
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:52 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2789

Post by Mykeru »

Reap wrote:
Michael J wrote:
Reap wrote:To anyone concerned. I have made it clear to Lee Moore that no one person is qualified to speak for the slymepit. His lack of a better term referring to opposition of FTB was probably why there was some confusion. I wasn't aware that was the way it was being presented. I only speak for me and I have never claimed otherwise. I understand that some idiots are probably going to make the mistake of assuming anyone who is a member of this forum and speaks in public is speaking for the entire forum there isn't much can be done about that except make it clear that isn't the case.
How could anyone speak for the slymepit? We are so diverse that we can't talk about friggin' bread without having a fight.
Exactly.
Fuck you, assbag.

AbsurdWalls
.
.
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:50 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2790

Post by AbsurdWalls »

Lsuoma wrote:So here's how it shakes out after getting more legal advice from my sister-in-law, to whom I have just shown the tweets.

Her advice to me was stay the fuck as far away as possible. Keep the ban. Have nothing to do with anyone I suspect might be Eucliwood. Don't reply to any communications, but if I have any indication that she is trying to target me to go with her, my sister-in-law, to law enforcement and make a legal deposition. She said that while she is an attorney, she's not anyone else's attorney in this matter apart from mine, but she doubted any other competent attorney would give their client different advice in the same circumstances.

So, the posting I mentioned earlier is off. The ban stays in place, and I'm done with discussing the matter. You can do as you all see fit.
I'm obviously curious as hell to find out what happened, but I trust whatever caused you to make this decision is good enough reason. I do wonder whether we will end up seeing her rejoin under a new name (especially if she's savvy enough to cover her tracks).

Submariner
.
.
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:05 pm
Location: Florida, US of A
Contact:

Re: A Counter-Condition to Steffie

#2791

Post by Submariner »

Mykeru wrote:We should formulate a counter-condition to Steffie. Not where we agree to talk to her, but the baseline minimum that we require to take her seriously.

Example:

1. Agrees to Clifford's Creedo of Freethought ""It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence", and agrees that asking for evidence or rejecting claims based on insufficient evidence is what a freethinker and skeptic does. Asking for evidence will not be construed as indicating anything but skepticism and will not be used to assume another body of beliefs not at issue (racism, sexism, misogyny, etc).

Failure to abide by conditions, or rejection of them, is ipso facto recognition of our right to laugh snidely at her.

What other conditions?
Abandon unfalsifiable hypotheses/theories and discontinue the use of "studies" and "scholarly papers", which assume said unfalsifiable beliefs as part of their premise, as evidence.

LMU
.
.
Posts: 617
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 7:40 am

Re: A Counter-Condition to Steffie

#2792

Post by LMU »

Mykeru wrote:We should formulate a counter-condition to Steffie. Not where we agree to talk to her, but the baseline minimum that we require to take her seriously.

Example:

1. Agrees to Clifford's Creedo of Freethought ""It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence", and agrees that asking for evidence or rejecting claims based on insufficient evidence is what a freethinker and skeptic does. Asking for evidence will not be construed as indicating anything but skepticism and will not be used to assume another body of beliefs not at issue (racism, sexism, misogyny, etc).

Failure to abide by conditions, or rejection of them, is ipso facto recognition of our right to laugh snidely at her.

What other conditions?
I like this idea.

2. It could be helpful to require that they define some of their terms. For example feminism (A radical notion... or ?), misogyny (Hatred of all women, or ?), patriarchy (A nation or group whose leaders are a majority male, or ?) etc. Choosing whatever terms are relevant to the topic of the discussion.

Parge
.
.
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:18 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2793

Post by Parge »

Mykeru wrote:Fuck you, assbag.
What the fuck is an "assbag" anyway? Is it something you wear to hide your a/ss/rse out of shame, or to utilize your a/ss/rse for its intended purpose on the go. Or more horribly, is it something that painfully protrudes from your a/ss/rse after an ill-advised clean-and-jerk (I'm talking weightlifting here. Don't even go there). I'm at a loss.

Metalogic42
.
.
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2794

Post by Metalogic42 »

3. All future blog posts must include at least 500 original words. (ha!)

jimthepleb
.
.
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:54 am
Location: you kay?

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2795

Post by jimthepleb »

Lsuoma wrote:So here's how it shakes out after getting more legal advice from my sister-in-law, to whom I have just shown the tweets.

Her advice to me was stay the fuck as far away as possible. Keep the ban. Have nothing to do with anyone I suspect might be Eucliwood. Don't reply to any communications, but if I have any indication that she is trying to target me to go with her, my sister-in-law, to law enforcement and make a legal deposition. She said that while she is an attorney, she's not anyone else's attorney in this matter apart from mine, but she doubted any other competent attorney would give their client different advice in the same circumstances.

So, the posting I mentioned earlier is off. The ban stays in place, and I'm done with discussing the matter. You can do as you all see fit.
all was settled
and nothing of value was lost.
I have admired your attempt to be as fair as humanly possible Lsuoma, but as your SIL suggests, enough is enough.

jimthepleb
.
.
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:54 am
Location: you kay?

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2796

Post by jimthepleb »

Parge wrote:
Mykeru wrote:Fuck you, assbag.
What the fuck is an "assbag" anyway? Is it something you wear to hide your a/ss/rse out of shame, or to utilize your a/ss/rse for its intended purpose on the go. Or more horribly, is it something that painfully protrudes from your a/ss/rse after an ill-advised clean-and-jerk (I'm talking weightlifting here. Don't even go there). I'm at a loss.
This:
http://www.personalwellnessconsultant.c ... ma-bag.jpg

Reap
.
.
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:27 pm
Location: Reno Nevada
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2797

Post by Reap »

Mykeru wrote:
Reap wrote:
Michael J wrote:
Reap wrote:To anyone concerned. I have made it clear to Lee Moore that no one person is qualified to speak for the slymepit. His lack of a better term referring to opposition of FTB was probably why there was some confusion. I wasn't aware that was the way it was being presented. I only speak for me and I have never claimed otherwise. I understand that some idiots are probably going to make the mistake of assuming anyone who is a member of this forum and speaks in public is speaking for the entire forum there isn't much can be done about that except make it clear that isn't the case.
How could anyone speak for the slymepit? We are so diverse that we can't talk about friggin' bread without having a fight.
Exactly.
Fuck you, assbag.
Suck it..yea you like that don't cha?

cunt
.
.
Posts: 2768
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:06 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2798

Post by cunt »

Imagine this, but with a white background and a gumby figure in the background.
I suppose for some, it is, just as some skeptics base their position on a desire to feel superior to stupid people.

Mykeru
.
.
Posts: 4758
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:52 am

Counter Conditions

#2799

Post by Mykeru »

So, what we've got is:

1. Agrees to Clifford's Creedo of Freethought ""It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence", and agrees that asking for evidence or rejecting claims based on insufficient evidence is what a freethinker and skeptic does. Asking for evidence will not be construed as indicating anything but skepticism and will not be used to assume another body of beliefs not at issue (racism, sexism, misogyny, etc).

2. Abandon unfalsifiable hypotheses/theories and discontinue the use of "studies" and "scholarly papers", which assume said unfalsifiable beliefs as part of their premise, as evidence.

3. It could be helpful to require that they define some of their terms. For example feminism (A radical notion... or ?), misogyny (Hatred of all women, or ?), patriarchy (A nation or group whose leaders are a majority male, or ?) etc. Choosing whatever terms are relevant to the topic of the discussion.

My caveat is that #3 should be applicable where they claim that someone is "anti". That is to say, in order to claim somone is "anti-feminist" they have to provide a clear definition of feminism where that claim is applicable.

Maybe we need a thread for this?

cunt
.
.
Posts: 2768
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:06 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2800

Post by cunt »

Nah, Myers would never stoop to something so low as to constantly debate the existence of bigfoot. His eye is on the prize, proving that Ken Ham's illustrations of people riding dinosaurs are bullshit.

another lurker
.
.
Posts: 4740
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:39 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2801

Post by another lurker »

cunt wrote:Imagine this, but with a white background and a gumby figure in the background.
I suppose for some, it is, just as some skeptics base their position on a desire to feel superior to stupid people.

I was just thinking about this. I was 'arguing' with idiots on yahoo comments, and feeling all 'superior' to people who cannot manage to type without contradicting their own stances. Ok, to be honest, I don't reallly feel 'superior'. I don't even feel superior when I call them 'fools'. I'm not very good at being mean, or hateful. I *try* really hard, to hit them with incisive, biting commentary, but I feel that I fall short. My heart just isn't in it.

And then I thought about all of the mean, hateful comments on FTB and A+. These people are *pros* at the put-down.

Take cunt's sig for example "You are a bad person. You say horrible things and you should feel bad about yourself."

The entire point is to shame and upset the target of the insult. To make them fucking *hate* themselves. These people are in it b/c they love to draw blood. And then they love to skull-fuck their adversary into oblivion. Their egos are so fragile that they must constantly fluff 'em up by being mean on the internet.

This is probably one of the many reasons why they were so nasty to me over 'grammar gate'. Any chance to make someone squirm...they just cannot resist!

Metalogic42
.
.
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2802

Post by Metalogic42 »

Ok, serious contribution: Addendum to 2 - *require* actual studies and scholarly papers which do not assume said unfalsifiable beliefs as part of their premise.

LMU
.
.
Posts: 617
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 7:40 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2803

Post by LMU »

Metalogic42 wrote:Ok, serious contribution: Addendum to 2 - *require* actual studies and scholarly papers which do not assume said unfalsifiable beliefs as part of their premise.
Just made a thread! http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=250

d4m10n
.
.
Posts: 1526
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:17 am
Location: OKC
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2804

Post by d4m10n »

Mykeru wrote:We should formulate a counter-condition to Steffie. Not where we agree to talk to her, but the baseline minimum that we require to take her seriously.

Example:

1. Agrees to Clifford's Creedo of Freethought ""It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence", and agrees that asking for evidence or rejecting claims based on insufficient evidence is what a freethinker and skeptic does. Asking for evidence will not be construed as indicating anything but skepticism and will not be used to assume another body of beliefs not at issue (racism, sexism, misogyny, etc).

Failure to abide by conditions, or rejection of them, is ipso facto recognition of our right to laugh snidely at her.

What other conditions?
2. Renounce any and all attempts to hinder free speech and free thought. Publicly apologise for supporting Laden in his digital book-burning campaign against SlimePit 1.0

Zenspace
.
.
Posts: 923
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 11:13 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2805

Post by Zenspace »

jimthepleb wrote:
Lsuoma wrote:
Angry_Drunk wrote:
jjbinx007 wrote:My vote: Ban Eucliwood until she's 18.
And how, pray tell, are we to determine when "she" reaches 18 when we can't even be certain "she" is a minor to begin with.
And this is why she has a very hard row to hoe.
repeating my previous question lsuoma, can a minor give permission to release her info without her parents say so?
I've stayed out of this brouhaha until now, but it's beginning to look like she is some sort of agent provocateur.
I've avoided the whole Eucliwood thing, but maybe it is time to add my two bits.

1) I have not blocked s/h/it's posts, but stopped reading them a long time ago (thank you, whoever invented the scrollwheel). Aside from their general pointlessness, there is just some odd quality, a subtle multiple personality sort of thing, that just sets off my alarms. There is something not right there. Someone mentioned their suspicions that s/h/it is really an adult male acting out and my take has very much that sort of feel. I just start to itch all over.

2) Do NOT take the potential reality the s/h/it is actually a minor of either sex lightly. The threat of legal ramifications to your personal self are very real and life changing in a really bad and permanent way.

I have indirect experience in this in that a former online associate (never met IRL) was entrapped by a police sting, pretending to be a teen girl. The associate agreed to meet 'her' IRL, supposedly to teach her what a bad idea meeting online strangers was, but who knows. He was met by a squad of police instead. The result. Job: gone. Family: no updates, but likely gone as well. Including his own kids, whom he was prevented from seeing unsupervised, and then only rarely. Communication: gone. Forbidden from any web access at all. Forced to shut down blog, etc., cut off from online friends - the main reason updates stopped. Status: permanently sex offender registry as pedophile. We happened to know someone in the area who did us the favor of stopping by for some of the court hearings. This is how we were able to learn as much as we know. Describing the guy as devastated does not begin to cover it.

In other words, he is Fucked For Life.

Lsuoma is playing it smart and by the book here. I would be careful with that release of personal info as others have noted here, however. Given the open nature of the Pyt and the importance we attach to that, I fully appreciate the reluctance to ban someone, but some circumstances do require it. Personally, I have not and will not engage in any way with Eucliwood. Period.

This has been a public service announcement. Please carry on.

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2806

Post by Dick Strawkins »

d4m10n wrote:
Mykeru wrote:We should formulate a counter-condition to Steffie. Not where we agree to talk to her, but the baseline minimum that we require to take her seriously.

Example:

1. Agrees to Clifford's Creedo of Freethought ""It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence", and agrees that asking for evidence or rejecting claims based on insufficient evidence is what a freethinker and skeptic does. Asking for evidence will not be construed as indicating anything but skepticism and will not be used to assume another body of beliefs not at issue (racism, sexism, misogyny, etc).

Failure to abide by conditions, or rejection of them, is ipso facto recognition of our right to laugh snidely at her.

What other conditions?
2. Renounce any and all attempts to hinder free speech and free thought. Publicly apologise for supporting Laden in his digital book-burning campaign against SlimePit 1.0
3. Publicly apologise for supporting Laden when he threatened to punch one of his commenters, Becca, in the face, and told her to "get off the rag and kiss my ass".

cunt
.
.
Posts: 2768
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:06 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2807

Post by cunt »

another lurker wrote:
cunt wrote:Imagine this, but with a white background and a gumby figure in the background.
I suppose for some, it is, just as some skeptics base their position on a desire to feel superior to stupid people.

I was just thinking about this. I was 'arguing' with idiots on yahoo comments, and feeling all 'superior' to people who cannot manage to type without contradicting their own stances. Ok, to be honest, I don't reallly feel 'superior'. I don't even feel superior when I call them 'fools'. I'm not very good at being mean, or hateful. I *try* really hard, to hit them with incisive, biting commentary, but I feel that I fall short. My heart just isn't in it.

And then I thought about all of the mean, hateful comments on FTB and A+. These people are *pros* at the put-down.

Take cunt's sig for example "You are a bad person. You say horrible things and you should feel bad about yourself."

The entire point is to shame and upset the target of the insult. To make them fucking *hate* themselves. These people are in it b/c they love to draw blood. And then they love to skull-fuck their adversary into oblivion. Their egos are so fragile that they must constantly fluff 'em up by being mean on the internet.

This is probably one of the many reasons why they were so nasty to me over 'grammar gate'. Any chance to make someone squirm...they just cannot resist!
It really is just the sheer hypocrisy that gets me every time. Myers has posted how many blog-posts now? Sometimes 3 to 4 a day for years if not decades. Most of which have been to point out a, frankly obvious, piece of stupidity from the creationists or just the american religious right. Oh yeah, i'll gumby quote this one up good, stick in a few snarky comments and post.

Now he thinks thats just beneath him, and its only other people who have the superiority complex.

UnbelieveSteve
.
.
Posts: 185
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 11:37 pm
Location: Sydney Australia

Re: A Counter-Condition to Steffie

#2808

Post by UnbelieveSteve »

Mykeru wrote:We should formulate a counter-condition to Steffie. Not where we agree to talk to her, but the baseline minimum that we require to take her seriously.

Example:

1. Agrees to Clifford's Creedo of Freethought ""It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence", and agrees that asking for evidence or rejecting claims based on insufficient evidence is what a freethinker and skeptic does. Asking for evidence will not be construed as indicating anything but skepticism and will not be used to assume another body of beliefs not at issue (racism, sexism, misogyny, etc).

Failure to abide by conditions, or rejection of them, is ipso facto recognition of our right to laugh snidely at her.

What other conditions?
THIS 8^10 TIMES :clap:

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2809

Post by Dick Strawkins »

As for Eucliwood.
You have no real choice.
She's only got herself to blame (and by "she", I mean the weird thirty-something year old man who is getting his kicks by impersonating a teenage girl online.)

UnbelieveSteve
.
.
Posts: 185
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 11:37 pm
Location: Sydney Australia

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2810

Post by UnbelieveSteve »

Metalogic42 wrote:3. All future blog posts must include at least 500 original words. (ha!)
Fucken love this rule. Oh wait a minute. Didn't OB struggle with 6 original words the other day?

Metalogic42
.
.
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2811

Post by Metalogic42 »

UnbelieveSteve wrote:
Metalogic42 wrote:3. All future blog posts must include at least 500 original words. (ha!)
Fucken love this rule. Oh wait a minute. Didn't OB struggle with 6 original words the other day?
If by "the other day", you mean "every day", then yes. :lol:

lurking coward

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2812

Post by lurking coward »

Submariner wrote:
Hasn't it always been said that
science makes no comment on the supernatural
- http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? ... %28book%29 et al. (google "science makes no comment on the supernatural")

Seems like PeeZus is trying to change that.
Not to defend PZ, but I must say, don't agree with the view that science can say nothing about the supernatural. Supernatural claims can and have been investigated (and invariably found to be bullshit).

Just ask Uri Geller.

Jerry Coyne had a post on this issue recently ("Can science test the supernatural? Yes!"). I can't vet the post because I only skimmed it, but I am familiar with the Yon Fishman paper he cites, which is excellent (I'd post the link but I don't think we can do that here, can we?).

jimthepleb
.
.
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:54 am
Location: you kay?

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2813

Post by jimthepleb »

Metalogic42 wrote:
UnbelieveSteve wrote:
Metalogic42 wrote:3. All future blog posts must include at least 500 original words. (ha!)
Fucken love this rule. Oh wait a minute. Didn't OB struggle with 6 original words the other day?
If by "the other day", you mean "every day", then yes. :lol:
to my knowledge OB has only ever written one original word, and she tried to attribute that to us.
The notorious 'rebitchka' that never was? Every other word she has written was previously extant.
(takes pedantic arsehole hat off and puts racist hat back on)

Apples
.
.
Posts: 2406
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2814

Post by Apples »

cunt wrote:Nah, Myers would never stoop to something so low as to constantly debate the existence of bigfoot. His eye is on the prize, proving that Ken Ham's illustrations of people riding dinosaurs are bullshit.
Bingo. Real skepticism is hard work. PZ's version is on a par with Rebecca's debunking of 'bad graphs' and her epic take-down of evo-psych.
http://store.discoveryeducation.com/ima ... 1225296659
It would actually be really interesting and worthwhile to see people like them actually apply open-minded, rigorous skepticism to social sciences / economics / social justice without an predetermined agenda.
http://www.bbsradio.com/userfiles/image ... igsFly.jpg

Mykeru
.
.
Posts: 4758
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:52 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2815

Post by Mykeru »

Also, apropos of nothing,

When I'm on eBay bidding on an out-of-stock everywhere Nemo Gogo Le bivy tent, DO NOT TRY TO OUTBID ME.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/3 ... AA300_.jpg

Seriously, I will fuck you up.

Za-zen
.
.
Posts: 2683
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:39 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2816

Post by Za-zen »

Lsuoma wrote:So here's how it shakes out after getting more legal advice from my sister-in-law, to whom I have just shown the tweets.

Her advice to me was stay the fuck as far away as possible. Keep the ban. Have nothing to do with anyone I suspect might be Eucliwood. Don't reply to any communications, but if I have any indication that she is trying to target me to go with her, my sister-in-law, to law enforcement and make a legal deposition. She said that while she is an attorney, she's not anyone else's attorney in this matter apart from mine, but she doubted any other competent attorney would give their client different advice in the same circumstances.

So, the posting I mentioned earlier is off. The ban stays in place, and I'm done with discussing the matter. You can do as you all see fit.
For what it's worth, i reckon you acted with due dilligence, and in keeping with preserving the pyt's ethos of freedom of expression. Ultimately there has to be a line with regards to content and membership, and that line has to be the one when crossed that could land you in front of a judge. This to my mind is sensible self (as well as board) preservation.

Zenspace
.
.
Posts: 923
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 11:13 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2817

Post by Zenspace »

Mykeru wrote:Also, apropos of nothing,

When I'm on eBay bidding on an out-of-stock everywhere Nemo Gogo Le bivy tent, DO NOT TRY TO OUTBID ME.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/3 ... AA300_.jpg

Seriously, I will fuck you up.
:lol:

I thought you weren't a lightpacker?

Oh, and where is that bid link... :whistle:

Metalogic42
.
.
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2818

Post by Metalogic42 »

lurking coward wrote:
Submariner wrote:
Hasn't it always been said that
science makes no comment on the supernatural
- http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? ... %28book%29 et al. (google "science makes no comment on the supernatural")

Seems like PeeZus is trying to change that.
Not to defend PZ, but I must say, don't agree with the view that science can say nothing about the supernatural. Supernatural claims can and have been investigated (and invariably found to be bullshit).

Just ask Uri Geller.

Jerry Coyne had a post on this issue recently ("Can science test the supernatural? Yes!"). I can't vet the post because I only skimmed it, but I am familiar with the Yon Fishman paper he cites, which is excellent (I'd post the link but I don't think we can do that here, can we?).
Science can test some supernatural claims but not others. Examples:

1) God supernaturally caused a global flood while not suspending any natural laws other than the ones required to actually cause the flood (testable)
2) God supernaturally caused a global flood, and suspended natural laws required to cause the flood, as well as laws governing the evidence such a flood would leave (not testable)

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2819

Post by Dick Strawkins »

lurking coward wrote:
Submariner wrote:
Hasn't it always been said that
science makes no comment on the supernatural
- http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? ... %28book%29 et al. (google "science makes no comment on the supernatural")

Seems like PeeZus is trying to change that.
Not to defend PZ, but I must say, don't agree with the view that science can say nothing about the supernatural. Supernatural claims can and have been investigated (and invariably found to be bullshit).

Just ask Uri Geller.

Jerry Coyne had a post on this issue recently ("Can science test the supernatural? Yes!"). I can't vet the post because I only skimmed it, but I am familiar with the Yon Fishman paper he cites, which is excellent (I'd post the link but I don't think we can do that here, can we?).
If PZ had stuck with this point then he might have a better argument.
There isn't really a good reason why the skeptic movement avoids the religious questions other than a sort of pragmatic cowardice.
It's true that skepticism/the scientific method cannot tell you that a God doesn't exist, but it can whittle down the claims of supernatural intervention in nature that are made by the major religions - probably the biggest form of woo that affects all our lives.
You don't have to kill God to defeat religion - you just need to turn Him into Santa.

Submariner
.
.
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:05 pm
Location: Florida, US of A
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#2820

Post by Submariner »

lurking coward wrote:
Submariner wrote:
Hasn't it always been said that
science makes no comment on the supernatural
- http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? ... %28book%29 et al. (google "science makes no comment on the supernatural")

Seems like PeeZus is trying to change that.
Not to defend PZ, but I must say, don't agree with the view that science can say nothing about the supernatural. Supernatural claims can and have been investigated (and invariably found to be bullshit).

Just ask Uri Geller.

Jerry Coyne had a post on this issue recently ("Can science test the supernatural? Yes!"). I can't vet the post because I only skimmed it, but I am familiar with the Yon Fishman paper he cites, which is excellent (I'd post the link but I don't think we can do that here, can we?).
Absolutely science can test supernatural claims, but the gist of the "science makes no comment..." quote is that atheism is not a byproduct of science. There are in fact many theistic ( or deistic) scientists extant. Conflation of science with atheism has been a religious claim the we atheists have been disavowing for a long time.

Locked