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

[rayshul]

I have more video games than she does. :)

[Za-zen]

I am not sure how many people here can see these two Facebook threads that have blown up in the last few days (Brian Engler has about 2600 friends, so maybe there are a few here)
But I wanted to point them out:

WIS conference
Online harassment

The gist is discussion started by Engler about the WIS conference in May and online harassment in general.

Some of the main speakers are Harriet Hall and Barbara Drescher on one side and Ophelia Benson and Ellen Beth Wachs on the other.
I don't know how I feel about posting FB threads that are private to friends of the OP, but this is an important talk, and I know a few posters have sent links of this to Ron Lindsay (so he cannot pretend this is not going on.)

Here is a small section from the online harassment one:
http://i.imgur.com/MGH2mzQ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/87s6jzK.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/9hYqCx2.jpg

That conversation isn't going to go well. Ophelia will ultimately flounce because she can't memory hole peoples comments and questions, and ellenbeth, well, ellenbeth, madder than a bucket of frogs. I have saw ellen refer people to posts within a comment stream, to evidence her assertions, that don't exist. Seriously, i have never witnessed someone as delusional in any debate format. You spend more time chasing red herrings, and attempting to figure out just what fucking drugs she is on than you do getting anywhere. It really is an experience.

[jjbinx007]

Atheismplus contributing to Social Justice. Hoorah!
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... start=1875

I love how they "care about social justice" while at the same time acting like cunts towards anyone with a post count less than 500 who dares to criticise any aspect of them or their ridiculous cliquey forum.

[Steersman]

I am not sure how many people here can see these two Facebook threads that have blown up in the last few days (Brian Engler has about 2600 friends, so maybe there are a few here)
But I wanted to point them out:

WIS conference
Online harassment

The gist is discussion started by Engler about the WIS conference in May and online harassment in general.

Some of the main speakers are Harriet Hall and Barbara Drescher on one side and Ophelia Benson and Ellen Beth Wachs on the other.
I don't know how I feel about posting FB threads that are private to friends of the OP, but this is an important talk, and I know a few posters have sent links of this to Ron Lindsay (so he cannot pretend this is not going on.)

Here is a small section from the online harassment one:
http://i.imgur.com/MGH2mzQ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/87s6jzK.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/9hYqCx2.jpg

That conversation isn't going to go well. Ophelia will ultimately flounce because she can't memory hole peoples comments and questions, and ellenbeth, well, ellenbeth, madder than a bucket of frogs. I have saw ellen refer people to posts within a comment stream, to evidence her assertions, that don't exist. Seriously, i have never witnessed someone as delusional in any debate format. You spend more time chasing red herrings, and attempting to figure out just what fucking drugs she is on than you do getting anywhere. It really is an experience.

From the conversation:

I did not say I thought she was lying. I said I did not believe her. There’s a difference.

Really!? While there is obviously a difference in the words used, the upshot is pretty much the same. Presumably, at least based on my dictionary, if someone makes a statement and you don’t believe them then, unless you actually have evidence that the statement is false, you are only thinking that the statement is false or, equivalently, you think they are lying. Parallel logic strikes again!

[Michael K Gray]

For fuck's sake. Learn to read people. There is nothing wrong with attacking Islam. In fact, that's one of the things we atheists we should do, seeing it's one of the shitties religions around.

Islamic weather forecast: Is it going to be Sunni or Shiite?

[Notung]

I have more video games than she does. :)

I actually thought her original kickstarter project was a reasonable enough idea, so I was on her side. But it seems she's doing everything in her power to turn me off the idea. For instance - she has at least 4 different machines to play the games on. PC, PS3, XBOX and Wii. But almost all of those games are available on the PC, and cheaper. In fact, if she went and got herself a Steam account, she could buy the games at a tiny fraction of the price ($5 each - no kidding) when they inevitably go on sale. That stack of games cost her loads more than she could have paid. But when it's other people's money you're wasting, who cares?

Also - that's the research material? No books? Surely books would help with the theory that the project is based on. Otherwise she's just playing some videogames - the whole thing just seems amateurish and not really serious. So she's just going to go looking for sexism until she finds a bit in game no. 26 and say 'aha I knew it!'. What would that prove? Why not start with some games that she hears has sexism in them (surely some of it has been documented) and look out for other leads. I'll give her one - FIFA 13. Not a single female player! ;) Or if she's selecting randomly - just buy the top 5 and play those and then move on. New games are coming out all the time. Also, what about older games? They all look like they come from 2010 at the earliest! What were her criteria for picking games?

And nothing to show for the project yet? It's a bit like when I buy some books and download some papers before starting an essay and say 'great! time for a break!'. Only my break eventually comes to an end and I'm not using other people's money to do it.

Also - she's going to be playing through those FOREVER. Skyrim alone has hundreds of hours of content.

I think the lesson we're all learning is never donate money to anything unless we know exactly what it will be used for.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I have problems with some aspects of the culture that travels along with Islam. Doesn't make me a racist.

If, say, some part of the culture of a certain tribe in Papouasie-New-Guinea involves slicing me open and eating my entrails as written in the sacred texts of Dudaï The Giant Newt, and I disaprove of that, does that make me a racist? Or a culturist, maybe?

[Dick Strawkins]

Regarding attacking Islam, I think it is useful to take the advice of Maryam Namazie, when dealing with this topic.
She suggests using the term "Islamists" rather than the more generic term "Muslims", since that separates out the kind of fundamentalists that want to impose Sharia law on the rest of us, from those who are not necessarily religious at all, but who simply grew up in a Muslim setting (family or majority culture.) Many of the "Muslims" I have known were about as religious (or irreligious) as the nominal Christians I've known.

[windy]

It seems to me that much of what we see as Islam is actually Arab culture which spread with Islam. An attack on islam is an attack on their identity and values and I don't think it is very effective compared to getting our own house in order.

Sorry, no one's "identity and values" should be exempt from criticism by outsiders. But worse than that, IMO, is that the immigrants from Muslim countries who aren't religious, many of them secular apostates, are ignored or marginalised by well-meaning westerners in the name of "respecting other cultures". And the West is centuries ahead of most Muslim countries in religious freedom already, but this good example alone doesn't seem to be doing the trick.

And about that Arab culture, people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Irshad Manji have argued the same thing, that a lot of Islam is actually Arab cultural imperialism under the guise of religion.

[Michael K Gray]

Chiming in with "fuck Islam"
I know muslims and (for the most part) they are nice guys

They are NOT "nice guys". They support, fund, and provide cover, (even if only by their inaction), to the worst fucken ideology in the history of the planet!!
"Nice guys", apart from their minor trivial flaw of assisting misogynist murders!
Fuck off.

[Steersman]

I have problems with some aspects of the culture that travels along with Islam. Doesn't make me a racist.

If, say, some part of the culture of a certain tribe in Papouasie-New-Guinea involves slicing me open and eating my entrails as written in the sacred texts of Dudaï The Giant Newt, and I disaprove of that, does that make me a racist? Or a culturist, maybe?

Survivalist?

But I think the issue highlights the problem of absolutist type definitions .... sort of like it's ok to be intolerant of intolerance without that being hypocritical ....

Apropos of which Andrew posted something recently about limiting immigration of Muslims here in Canada. While that might be antithetical to the principles of freedom of religion, that principle is not a "get-out-of-jail-free" card; there are other principles like equality and democracy that trump that one ....

[Michael K Gray]

I have problems with some aspects of the culture that travels along with Islam. Doesn't make me a racist.

If, say, some part of the culture of a certain tribe in Papouasie-New-Guinea involves slicing me open and eating my entrails as written in the sacred texts of Dudaï The Giant Newt, and I disaprove of that, does that make me a racist? Or a culturist, maybe?

No. It makes you "dinner".

[Michael K Gray]

Many of the "Muslims" I have known were about as religious (or irreligious) as the nominal Christians I've known.

They are worse than the honest fundamentalists by providing cover for their abominable actions.
Why can nobody see this elephant in the room, for fux sake?

[Dick Strawkins]

That conversation isn't going to go well. Ophelia will ultimately flounce because she can't memory hole peoples comments and questions, and ellenbeth, well, ellenbeth, madder than a bucket of frogs. I have saw ellen refer people to posts within a comment stream, to evidence her assertions, that don't exist. Seriously, i have never witnessed someone as delusional in any debate format. You spend more time chasing red herrings, and attempting to figure out just what fucking drugs she is on than you do getting anywhere. It really is an experience.

It's a fascinating thread.
Ophelia isn't behaving any differently than she does on her own site but the difference here is she cannot simply ban people for asking difficult questions.

To me, it seems that we are witnessing the inevitable clash between serious academics - those trained in science or philosophy - and those who simply use the methods when it is convenient. Ophelia doesn't, as far as I know, have any real academic qualifications. She doesn't have the training to deal with the likes of Barbara Drescher using the logic of her own words against her.
She has published some good books in the past but they have always been joint efforts with the likes of Baggini and Stangford. Looking at her train-wreck column about Shermer, I can't help but think that she needs someone to point out basic errors she makes in her reasoning.
Butterflies and Wheels used to be a decent site where you could get a discussion going. Not any more. Now that Ophelia has decided it's all us-or-them she has lost anyone with an independent mind and is just left with the kind of sycophantic numbskulls that infest the main FTB communities. Now when someone points out an error it's just evidence that they are a misogynist.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I personally know lots of Arabs who are not muslims, or religious at all. Also, nice guys (and gals).

Their parents, not always so. A very good friend of mine (Algerian) was put by force in a mental institution by his muslim (that's right, not islamist, muslim) parents for having long hair and a piercing. They thought he was turning gay. Of course, they didn't use that reason, instead alleging he tried to commit suicide (which I know with 100% certainty he didn't, since he was with me at the time of the "attempt").

To deny that religions, all of them, are separate from cultural aspects is very naïve, and dangerous.

[jjbinx007]

[quote="Notung"
Also - that's the research material? No books? Surely books would help with the theory that the project is based on. Otherwise she's just playing some videogames - the whole thing just seems amateurish and not really serious. So she's just going to go looking for sexism until she finds a bit in game no. 26 and say 'aha I knew it!'. What would that prove? Why not start with some games that she hears has sexism in them (surely some of it has been documented) and look out for other leads. I'll give her one - FIFA 13. Not a single female player! ;) Or if she's selecting randomly - just buy the top 5 and play those and then move on. New games are coming out all the time. Also, what about older games? They all look like they come from 2010 at the earliest! What were her criteria for picking games?

And nothing to show for the project yet? It's a bit like when I buy some books and download some papers before starting an essay and say 'great! time for a break!'. Only my break eventually comes to an end and I'm not using other people's money to do it.

Also - she's going to be playing through those FOREVER. Skyrim alone has hundreds of hours of content.

I think the lesson we're all learning is never donate money to anything unless we know exactly what it will be used for.[/quote]

Wow, product aimed at demographic is moulded to appeal to demographic shocker!

Games have always been anti-women. For example:

Pac man - clearly sexist. What about Pac woman?

Super Mario - lead character is male, has to rescue a princess who gets kidnapped. Chauvinistic, misogynistic oppressive patriarchy designed to brainwash our children.

Space invaders - aliens violently attack our base using weapons (spunk firing penises). Player has to respond with violence (a typical male response) rather than using standard Feminist tactics such as writing disingenuous blog posts, sending cyber hugs or firing ceramic discs with messages like "Confident and sassy!" written on them in crayon.

[jjbinx007]

Grr, my kingdom for an edit button.

[Dick Strawkins]

Many of the "Muslims" I have known were about as religious (or irreligious) as the nominal Christians I've known.

They are worse than the honest fundamentalists by providing cover for their abominable actions.
Why can nobody see this elephant in the room, for fux sake?

What exactly is your preferred solution?

That every non-practicing Muslim publicly renounce his or her religion?
I guess this is kind the goal of atheism but it is hardly practical. Isn't it more pragmatic to emphasize categories of religious belief and allow people to designate themselves into the most appropriate one?
I've heard the "they are providing cover" argument before but it's not particularly convincing when you think that the same thing could apply to Christianity which, in Europe at least, is moving towards a model not too different from bland Universal Unitarianism.

[Michael K Gray]

I personally know lots of Arabs who are not muslims, or religious at all. Also, nice guys (and gals).

Their parents, not always so. A very good friend of mine (Algerian) was put by force in a mental institution by his muslim (that's right, not islamist, muslim) parents for having long hair and a piercing. They thought he was turning gay. Of course, they didn't use that reason, instead alleging he tried to commit suicide (which I know with 100% certainty he didn't, since he was with me at the time of the "attempt").

To deny that religions, all of them, are separate from cultural aspects is very naïve, and dangerous.

The country with the most Muslims is Indonesia, followed by Pakistan, India and Bangladesh.
Nary an Arab to be seen.
Arabs are, by default, a teeny-tiny an itsy-bisty minority of members of the House of Islam.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Many of the "Muslims" I have known were about as religious (or irreligious) as the nominal Christians I've known.

They are worse than the honest fundamentalists by providing cover for their abominable actions.
Why can nobody see this elephant in the room, for fux sake?

What exactly is your preferred solution?

That every non-practicing Muslim publicly renounce his or her religion?
I guess this is kind the goal of atheism but it is hardly practical. Isn't it more pragmatic to emphasize categories of religious belief and allow people to designate themselves into the most appropriate one?
I've heard the "they are providing cover" argument before but it's not particularly convincing when you think that the same thing could apply to Christianity which, in Europe at least, is moving towards a model not too different from bland Universal Unitarianism.

Sorry, I know this wasn't addressed to me, but allow me: The same thing could, and SHOULD apply to Christianity (or any other religious belief). For every open-minded former church-goer, you'll be likely to find a Fred Phelps. No-true-scottman arguments shouldn't be allowed to fly (nor should radical islamists. :rimshot: ).

And your Europe exemple highlights what MKG was saying in a very apt way. You can go and google Hellfest, for a small exemple. Religious fundamentalists trying to ban a music festival. But hey, they're not REAL christians. Incidently, they are called "Familles de France". Rings a bell, doesn't it?

[16bitheretic]

It seems to me that much of what we see as Islam is actually Arab culture which spread with Islam. An attack on islam is an attack on their identity and values and I don't think it is very effective compared to getting our own house in order.

When I read this, something didn't sit well with me, and I'm not sure I'll articulate this very well, but here goes.

While I recognize that there is a certain contingent of critics of Islam who just hate brown skinned "others" immigrating to their cities and living in insular neighborhoods (we see a similar situation here in the US, but not with Muslims so much as migrant workers from Mexico who cross the border to find work) and some controversies like New York's Ground Zero Mosque of France's burqa ban do seem more rooted in fear of the "others" than a valid clash of ideas, I can't help but think that many of us in the atheist column and many of my fellow liberal types do a little bit of overcompensation in trying to separate ourselves and any potential criticism of Islam from the actions of the people who actually do just hate brown skinned folks.

I don't see Islam as a culture, I see it as an oppressive set rules and guidelines laid out in one book, the Qu'ran, and it's supporting texts, the Hadith. When I attack Islam I am specifically attacking the ideas in those texts because they are barbaric and are, as far as I'm concerned, the real oppressors of Arab culture. Culture is too broad of a concept to be contained in something as small as the Qu'ran and the Hadith, just as in the west our culture could not possibly be totally defined by the Bible or the writings of our minority religions such as the Book of Mormon or the writings of L. Ron Hubbard. It's not an attack on an entire civilization, culture or population to criticize the fascist dictates of it's leaders and the texts of the law, nor to attack a specific single member of an ideology for their actions and words.

I think because some clerics and leaders within Islam jump to take offense at the smallest perceived attack on their beliefs we give them way too much ground to tell us what we can and can't say. We didn't tolerate that with any other oppressive fascist ideology in the past, nor do we do that today, except with Islam. We didn't see criticism of Hitler and Mein Kampf as hatred of German people, we don't equate the mockery of Kim Jong Il in movies like Team America or criticism of DPRK writings as phobia of North Koreans or Korean culture, so why are we allowing this small selection of hyper-sensitive clerics to determine that we should not post a picture of a 7th century warlord, have a little mocking fun at said warlord's expense or say anything negative about their primitive holy books?

I also question how many of the people who are telling us to shut up about Islam are unaware they are free to say whatever they want about groups like the American religious right because we had Enlightenment era thinkers in Europe and America a few hundred years ago who didn't bow to the hyper-offense and professional victim complaining of the clerics of their day. In many Muslim dominated countries people are threatened with their very lives for being the wrong type of Muslim, let alone posting anything critical of Mohammed, the Qu'ran or their local government on Facebook. If we in the west don't step up and attack their clearly false faith based ideology and expose it as bullshit, where else will the pressure to drop these barbaric ideologies come from?

[Michael K Gray]

Many of the "Muslims" I have known were about as religious (or irreligious) as the nominal Christians I've known.

They are worse than the honest fundamentalists by providing cover for their abominable actions.
Why can nobody see this elephant in the room, for fux sake?

What exactly is your preferred solution?

I now no longer wonder why you chose a straw man as your avatar.

That every non-practicing Muslim publicly renounce his or her religion?
I guess this is kind the goal of atheism but it is hardly practical. Isn't it more pragmatic to emphasize categories of religious belief and allow people to designate themselves into the most appropriate one?
I've heard the "they are providing cover" argument before but it's not particularly convincing when you think that the same thing could apply to Christianity which, in Europe at least, is moving towards a model not too different from bland Universal Unitarianism.

It applied to Christianity just as much when it was in its infancy, just as Islam is right now.
Another straw man, comparing Christinsanity to Islam.

But... I will take your question on-board:- You seem to suggest that we wait for 400 years or so, until Islam goes through its Spanish Inquisition period, and then to its Renaissance, such that it is reduced to only the horrific bloody massacres in Africa such as the Christinsanes have today?
"not particularly convincing"?? It doesn't matter two dingo balls to reality what you consider convincing.

Benign believers keep the loonies out of asylums, and into the real world to do enormous damage to women and kiddies.
I never claimed to proffer a solution to this fuck-up, but history tells us very strongly that it will not go away by pandering to the pathetic weakling LIARS who claim to have faith, but don't really.
Not in any way shape nor form.
And please don't straw-man me again Strawkins.

[jjbinx007]

Why I don't believe in trigger warnings:

http://www.newstatesman.com/sci-tech/20 ... r-warnings

Also, a Feminist writer for the Guardian https://twitter.com/MissEllieMae has tweeted:

I think there needs to be a rethink of how feminists treat each other. Less of the 'you must abide by these rules to be a good feminist'

"Check your privilege, never be flippant, add a trigger warning or the feminists will come for you!" is not a feminism I want a part of.

I'd rather debate, acceptance and encouragement. I've sometimes been guilty of the opposite. But I'm not going to do that anymore.

[TheMan]

I personally know lots of Arabs who are not muslims, or religious at all. Also, nice guys (and gals).

Their parents, not always so. A very good friend of mine (Algerian) was put by force in a mental institution by his muslim (that's right, not islamist, muslim) parents for having long hair and a piercing. They thought he was turning gay. Of course, they didn't use that reason, instead alleging he tried to commit suicide (which I know with 100% certainty he didn't, since he was with me at the time of the "attempt").

To deny that religions, all of them, are separate from cultural aspects is very naïve, and dangerous.

When the footy ( Rugby League) season starts (soon..excited) I'll be socialising with my footy mates (guys and gals). We've got the lot...Lebs, Egyptian, Greek, Italian, Maltese, Aussie a few Poms and more. Some of the arabic based fans are muslem...occasionally religion comes up but that's only because sometimes the home games clash with Friday night prayer times. We give them a ribbing about it and have a laugh (in typical Aussie fashion). They don't drink but then neither do some of the Aussies. We sing the same songs, make the same noise, curse the same opposition. When we were the colours we're all the same....

The muslems that come to the game are typically first gen aussies and the younger ones are second gen. In attitudes, when we talk about other stuff or even just the way they strutt about I can't tell the difference between the muslem and the other ethnic tribes.

Then we have the Canterbury Bulldogs footy team...they have a large muslem following. Between 2001-2005 a few big fights broke out amongst the crowd when this team played. It seemed their religion became a bit of a problem with some other fans (particularly with Eastern Suburbs Rooster team...poshy side of sydney). No medals for guessing the reasons for the timing of the rise in tensions.

http://images.smh.com.au/2012/09/29/367 ... 20x349.jpg
Canterbury Bulldog fans celebrate

My impressions from the immigrants I know, and I know a few, is that they want the same things. To get away from the violence, get a job, buy a house, get married, have kids and watch some footy.

Both the muzzies and the christians want to convert me back to God... I get a ribbing from them too.

That's my experience with muslems in a social setting...seems to be the same with the christians. Both have in the past expressed sadness of what is done in the name of god. (usually when I jump in and ask them to take it a few steps further).

That's not to say all my experiences with Muslem men have been awesome and wholesome...but I've had a few run ins with Anglo-aussies too.

One thing I have noticed is that the younger second gen muslems I know have very western aspirations and very relaxed about religious practice. I'm sure I'd still get a spanking from Grand Ma if she were still alive to hear me going on about religion...I'd be a major disappointment as I am with some of my rellos concerning religion back in the old country.

[codelette]

Sins of your father:

(and mother - fuck the patriarchy)

crom - Copy.JPG

Isn't see half-white?
If so, does that make him half a racist?

[mikelf]

Atheismplus contributing to Social Justice. Hoorah!
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 875#p67208
http://i.imgur.com/UCzTyGB.jpg
Re: Are the moderators here censorious, capricious and biase
Postby GreatBlueHeron » Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:40 am
Hey mood. What you see as just talking on the internet is actually social justice in action. People come here, learn, and apply what they've learned here out into meatspace. And, HELLO, this site is a harbor for people like me. The people who created this site and do their best to maintain it as a safe space for marginalized people? That's social justice in action--people taking action. It should be evident, Why you refuse to see that is confusing as hell.

So, doing nothing is doing something?

Reminds me of a corporate executive retirement announcement I saw once that thanked the subject of the announcement for "providing thought leadership on customer centricity." I wondered out loud what the heck that actually meant. Without missing a beat, a coworker of mine replied "It means she won't be missed."

[Gumby]

Just saw this today on BBC News online.

"Richard Dawkins and Rowan Williams are to discuss the role of religion at a Cambridge Union debate.

Prominent atheist Prof Dawkins and the former Archbishop of Canterbury will discuss whether "religion has no place in the 21st Century" on Thursday.

They were involved in a public discussion at Oxford University last year.

Ben Kentish, president of the union, said it should be a highlight of the debating society's 200-year history.

"Our speakers are the most renowned commentators on this subject," he said.

In Cambridge, about 1,000 students will be in the audience.

"The prospect of seeing Professor Dawkins and the former Archbishop of Canterbury debate the subject is particularly exciting for our members," Mr Kentish said.

"It has all the makings of an excellent debate."

Professor Tariq Ramadan, Andrew Copson, the chief executive of the British Humanist Association, and Douglas Murray, founder of the Centre for Social Cohesion, will also take part.

The debate will be filmed and made available soon after on the union's website.

Previous speakers at the debating society include Sir Winston Churchill, Desmond Tutu and the Dalai Lama."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-ca ... e-21220007

Meanwhile, PZ Myers will call someone a misogynist and ban him from a blog.

:clap:

[Apples]

I am not sure how many people here can see these two Facebook threads that have blown up in the last few days (Brian Engler has about 2600 friends, so maybe there are a few here)
But I wanted to point them out:

https://www.facebook.com/brian.david.en ... 8715417716 WIS conference
https://www.facebook.com/brian.david.en ... 8866174699 Online harassment

The gist is discussion started by Engler about the WIS conference in May and online harassment in general.

Some of the main speakers are Harriet Hall and Barbara Drescher on one side and Ophelia Benson and Ellen Beth Wachs on the other.
I don't know how I feel about posting FB threads that are private to friends of the OP, but this is an important talk, and I know a few posters have sent links of this to Ron Lindsay (so he cannot pretend this is not going on.)

Here is a small section from the online harassment one:
http://i.imgur.com/MGH2mzQ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/87s6jzK.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/9hYqCx2.jpg

That Ophelia/Harriet Hall online harassment thread is absolute gold. Ophie comes off as exactly the weasily, dishonest mediocrity and hostile witness that she is. It's got everything -- parallel logic, quibbling about obvious truths, goalpost shifting.

I can't "produce the email" - this is the internet.

LMAO

I did not say I thought she was lying. I said I didn't believe her. There's a difference.

Harriet absolutely pwns her, with a little help from others.

In Ophie's post yesterday rehashing the Shermerfest (lies and the lying Opheliars who lie about them), she takes one little tippy-toe back:

The imperfection in what I wrote in the article was saying of the overall stereotype, “Don’t laugh: Michael Shermer said exactly that…” when I would have closed that loophole by instead saying “Michael Shermer invoked exactly that stereotype…”

But that is really not a very big imperfection.

She couldn't say, "I made an error." She has to insist that what she wrote was perfect, except for that one little bit of smegma - and after all, it was really not a very big piece of smegma.

She really does believe that she pisses wine and shits butterflies. (Couldn't help noticing there's a telling typo in the second-to-last sentence of the post and that in the comments she misuses "phased" when she means "fazed." Imperfection, thy name is indeed Ophelia.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... #more-6408

[Scented Nectar]

Form vs content again. Yes, I think Pat Condell is a fucking racist asshole but not because he does harsh criticism of Islam. That would be focusing on the form, something that you would do. Islam deserves to be harshly criticized. So, instead, look at the content of his beliefs: Muslims immigrate to UK, produce lots of babies, take over the white population, and then establish Muslim theocracy and the only way to stop it is to stop immigration from muslim countries. That is essentially the message of Pat Condell's videos. I hope I don't need to explain why this view is racist.

Which race are muslims? "Arab" is only one of many - consider how many differently raced countries are islamic theocracies. You will find every shade of brown, from a beige (light brown) so light and white that the blood shows through making it pink, to a brown so dark it's almost black.

Pat Condell rightfully does not want an inhumane religion taking hold in his modern, mostly secular country. He's not worried about the colour of the babies that will make up more of the population, but their religion when they grow up, and the influence they may have, both legally and illegally pushing theocracy.

tl;dr - Religion, not race.

So, instead, look at the content of his beliefs: Muslims immigrate to UK, produce lots of babies, take over the white population, and then establish Muslim theocracy and the only way to stop it is to stop immigration from muslim countries. That is essentially the message of Pat Condell's videos. I hope I don't need to explain why this view is racist.

Muslims aren't a race.

It seems too many people are not getting it. "Muslim" also is not heritable. So, when they talk about Muslims producing many Muslims babies, and taking over the white population in a few generations, they are not actually talking about Muslims. They are talking about brown people. They are talking about immigrants. For them brown = Muslim = Arab. That's why they coin the term Eurabia. And that is why they hide behind the criticism of Islam while never making the distinction between a Muslim and an Arab. And that is why their criticism of Muslims is the spearhead of their anti-immigration policy.

If that's true, then is Condell against other darker skinned people who are NOT muslim from immigrating too? I doubt it. And is he totally fine with letting white muslims into the country? I doubt that too. It's not the colour people are against. It's the religion. That religion is currently the most inhumane one on the planet. It's also the one with a repeatedly bad track record of going to other countries and forcing their religion into the laws there. Restricting immigration to stop future islam believers from coming in, is just common sense. "Arabs" of other religions (eg coptic christians) could still come in. That's because it's about religion, not race. Muslims are not a race. They are people who practice the rules of, and who believe in, islam.

________________________

I have problems with some aspects of the culture that travels along with Islam. Doesn't make me a racist.

If, say, some part of the culture of a certain tribe in Papouasie-New-Guinea involves slicing me open and eating my entrails as written in the sacred texts of Dudaï The Giant Newt, and I disaprove of that, does that make me a racist? Or a culturist, maybe?

There is nothing wrong with being against a culture, which is simply a set of behaviours, beliefs and rules. Just like there's nothing wrong with being against any particular set of politics. Has nothing to do with skin colour or other superficial appearance traits.

[Scented Nectar]

Here's a taste of what was current in Sweden in 2005. Note also that Sweden had their feminist belief in satanic child rape in the 2000s, a couple decades late to the false memory game, but chock full of the paranoid hate/fear and without evidence.

[video]

I also wrote an article about it here:
http://scentednectar.blogspot.com/2012/ ... riget.html where I talk about how I naively tried to tell PZ about it (before EG happened), thinking at the time that he was actually against sexism and false beliefs in satan. Hahahah, yeah right, eh?

Wait, seriously? A modern European nation, and they had a go-round with satanic ritual abuse belief? In the 2000's?

Yes. If you have the time someday, check out the video I embedded here or at my article. It's almost 2 hours long, but it's both fascinating and shocking in how the feminists there have infested Sweden's gov't. The documentary is from 2005, and someone mentioned that it's a little bit better now, and that either ROKS and/or Bella's Friends no longer exist (I can't remember which or both).

Sweet titty fucking christ, what the fuck is wrong with people's brains? I thought it was limited mostly to half-educated social workers and religious conservative cops and judges in America, most of whom were already known to be half-wits and/or liars by intelligent people.

Was there a large connection to feminists in Sweden? Now I'm going to have to read your blog. I've often thought that the worst social laws get made when the far-left and far-right can get together and hate something mutually. Insane drug laws, lessening of protections for the accused in the courts, deciding that only men can really be abusive in relationships, etc.....they all stem from religious/patriarchal/authoritarian cultures, but are also often embraced by delusional and fascist leftists as well. With satanic ritual abuse and recovered memories, there was a connection to somewhat liberal social workers in America, playing at being psychologists, doing hypnosis, stuff like that, but as far as I remember, the academic feminists were too well-educated at the time to buy in to a satanic conspiracy.
But then there are the "recovered memory" theories that have been separated from religion, and some feminists seem to have no problem co-opting those for their own purposes.

Sweden has a lot of radical feminists who have infested both academia and gov't.

It's not really quite to "witch hunt" proportions yet, but I know I am not the only one seeing noticeable parallels between even fairly "moderate" feminism as it's presented today, and religious pogroms/social purges of the past? I've been seeing these patterns for a while, but it was the chapters in Demon Haunted World comparing UFO abductions, satanic ritual abuse, recovered memory therapy, witch hunts, and religious visions that really got me thinking, although it had nothing directly to do with feminist movements or beliefs. None of them seem to embrace the really out-there stuff yet, but the mood they're trying to promote, and the levels of belief they expect without evidence, is really starting to creep me out.

I mean, even mainstream feminists believe all kinds of idiotic shit with no evidence....that we have a pervasive "rape culture" in the west, that only men can or do really commit abuse in relationships (though the real numbers show parity), that men are likely to be sexual abusers and manipulators, idiotic shit like "rape switches"...etc, etc....how long before all this unfounded belief causes even more ugliness than it already has? How much "witch hunt" mentality can the liberal side of western society absorb before something has to give? American history has plenty of ugly examples of right-wing witch hunting, maybe it's just a matter of time and power.....the fact that so many liberals are lazy finger-pointers may keep the damage from spreading, but may also keep the uninformed masses from protesting any idiocy that does manage to make it into policy.

I think that the best thing possible, is to expose it just as we've been exposing religion over the years for what it really is. A mixture of exposing/debunking their faith-based claims and thought crimes and social assumptions, and also to mock, mock, and mock those same beliefs. They are trying to do things which fuck people over and spread untruths. We should point those out whenever they do it. Nip each one in the bud with logic and laughter.

[Scented Nectar]

Indian Fry Bread Recipes

[decius]

I'll catch up with the thread later. This is gold and I need to share it.

Steven Novella has distanced himself from Peezus and Twatson in his customary classy and soft-spoken way. If you read between the lines, there's also a pretty harsh condemnation ("let's not pretend...ect.").

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde ... um=twitter

Atypically, he utilised the SGU account to tweet the link far and wide.

[welch]

So, instead, look at the content of his beliefs: Muslims immigrate to UK, produce lots of babies, take over the white population, and then establish Muslim theocracy and the only way to stop it is to stop immigration from muslim countries. That is essentially the message of Pat Condell's videos. I hope I don't need to explain why this view is racist.

Muslims aren't a race.

It seems too many people are not getting it. "Muslim" also is not heritable. So, when they talk about Muslims producing many Muslims babies, and taking over the white population in a few generations, they are not actually talking about Muslims. They are talking about brown people. They are talking about immigrants. For them brown = Muslim = Arab. That's why they coin the term Eurabia. And that is why they hide behind the criticism of Islam while never making the distinction between a Muslim and an Arab. And that is why their criticism of Muslims is the spearhead of their anti-immigration policy.

It's the same thing here. All the anti-immigrants hit is just "I hate Mexicans".

I'm especially amused when various Cuban legislators get on a high horse about immigration given that they have such an awesome loophole. Basically, if someone fleeing Cuba sets foot on american soil, they are automatically legal. There literally cannot be an illegal immigrant from cuba in this country by law.

Now that's some fucking privilege.

[Eucliwood]

Why I don't believe in trigger warnings:

If it was some seriously violent stuff I was writing about & knew someone had a rough time with it I'd just make sure it was clear in the beginning that that topic was what my paragraph/whatever was going to be about. When someone puts "TW: for ___" it gives a false sense of security... it makes it feel like a ton of bricks or like they should be shaken up when they don't see that and see "That time, when that X violently did in Y, lemme tell you about it..." instead. The rest of the world isn't randomly thinking of putting trigger warnings on things.

They are worse than the honest fundamentalists by providing cover for their abominable actions.
Why can nobody see this elephant in the room, for fux sake?

Because there is no elephant in the room.


I understand when people don't want to come out of the non-fundie closet. Hell, sometimes it can be like coming out of the gay closet. How is someone worse than a fundamentalist for having their privacy? I guess I could see someone saying that if they didn't think fundie beliefs were that big a deal in the first place.

Oooh, okay, I see. You're accusing the non-practicing ones of providing cover for fundamentalists. You want to be able to hear "Muslim" and know they're a total asshole, rather than having to check them out as a person or accept you don't know them. What the fuck? Bro. The non practicing people are not thinking about you and your viewing their not coming out to people around them as "providing cover for people with a certain set of beliefs within their socalled religion."

I sure as hell never thought of myself as doing that when I called myself belonging to any denomination. What's the big deal? Should they have to wear color coded stars or something? Be all "Hey, I'm christian... oh, and by the way, I don't think X, Y, or Z, if that's what you're thinking. If you somehow seriously think that "Christian" means fundie automatically with all the christians in the world who aren't. I only think A, B, and C. I apologize for not telling you all about myself before and somehow giving the fundamentalists people to hide under."

Um, no. The fundamentalists aren't taking cover under anyone. What does one person's mild religion have to do with someone else's strict views? True, if they don't talk about their views, you don't know if they're one of those stinky fundamentalists... you'd have to judge by an individual basis. But so what? What's so important about the ability to assume someone has (specific set of beliefs here) as soon as they say the word "christian" or "muslim"? What's next? Complaining that you don't know someone even has a religion by looking at them, and accusing those dirty silent atheists of hiding religious people by not exclaiming that they aren't religious?

Get over it. Accept that you don't have as specific a definition for "Muslim" when someone says they're one as you'd like. These non-fundies aren't changing definitions or what it means when people say "christian" or "muslim." You want it to change so that you can know someone's exact views as soon as they say the words. What *is* the big deal? If someone isn't talking about their views, it's ohwell. For me, it's only relevant in a conversation when I'm talking with them about them anyway, or when I'm commenting on things they actually said they think. There's probably shitloads more you don't know about them either.

Maybe they're hiding their daughter's dead corpse in their basement.

Really. Non-fundies shouldn't care about your complaints, because yours are just ridiculous. They don't have to cater to you.


By the way, @ forum, what's up with all the triple posts I've seen lately (mostly from people whose actual posts I can't see)? Just wondering. It makes me want to be free again. Here some people are, able to post three times in a row, but I have to suffer minor to major lag. Who knows when this post will go up - if people will have a chance to read it with this fast moving forum. Moderation is just a step down from a ban in such a fast moving place. If you aren't prepared to ban someone you shouldn't moderate them here, either.

[welch]

So, instead, look at the content of his beliefs: Muslims immigrate to UK, produce lots of babies, take over the white population, and then establish Muslim theocracy and the only way to stop it is to stop immigration from muslim countries. That is essentially the message of Pat Condell's videos. I hope I don't need to explain why this view is racist.

Muslims aren't a race.

It seems too many people are not getting it. "Muslim" also is not heritable. So, when they talk about Muslims producing many Muslims babies, and taking over the white population in a few generations, they are not actually talking about Muslims. They are talking about brown people. They are talking about immigrants. For them brown = Muslim = Arab. That's why they coin the term Eurabia. And that is why they hide behind the criticism of Islam while never making the distinction between a Muslim and an Arab. And that is why their criticism of Muslims is the spearhead of their anti-immigration policy.

Spot on. And the Muslims that aren't brown are from Eastern Europe, so it's a good catch all phrase.

Frankly, people who happen to be muslims get a raw deal all over, especially the Palestinians. I happen to think that in humanity's long and shitty history, the creation of Israel is a low point. 'Fuck 'em to the ground', and not because they are Jewish, but because of their crimes.

There is a discussion to be had about how Atheists deal with Islam in the context of this war we seem to be in. On the one hand, freedom of speech and all that -- should we be as merciless with Islam as we are with Christianity? On the other we need the help of these people to help us combat the extremists in places like Afghanistan, Mali... Birmingham!

Personally, my opinion is to go after Christianity, make the West secular and godless and lead by example. Islamic youths see us on the internet and in meat-space and they want to be like us, to have the lifestyles we have... and they are drifting away from Islam. This is far more effective than attacking what they believe to be their core values and putting them on the defensive.

Levi's, Ford, and Atlantic records did far more to win the Cold War than NATO.

[Guest]

I have more video games than she does. :)

And I'd be willing to bet you've played more games this past year than Sarkeesian ever has. It's obvious from her statements, pictures, and posturing on the subject that she is at best a casual gamer if one at all. Notung made a great point about Steam games; if she was any kind of gamer how could she not know about them? Not to mention her focus on recent games is a definite tell. At a quick glance there aren't even any PS2 games in the bunch, much less S/NES. How about going back further into the history of the hobby? DOA? Night Trap? Duke Nukem? Leisure Suit Larry? Fucking Atari Porn?

http://es.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/ ... tyr_anita/

Fleeced indeed. That money isn't going for games or 'research'. It'll be put towards rent and travelling to conferences and drinks at the bar etc. Not enough time to play them all? How about not enough will or desire? Even if anything comes out of this cash grab, it stands no chance of being well done or 'professional'.

[Trophy]

I did not say I thought she was lying. I said I did not believe her. There’s a difference.

Isn't that gaslighting by their definition?

Because I clearly remember that this following exchange was used as the prime example of DJ "gaslighting" women.

Ashley, just so there isn’t any misunderstanding: are you saying that I had someone removed from TAM last year? By whom were you told that it was me who made someone leave, as you say above?

Again, very sorry to hear about the incident, but neither I nor any other staffer asked anyone to leave TAM last year, and no staff received a complaint along these lines. Do you know if the guy was a TAM attendee, and that he left TAM? You mention the incident occurred at the speakers reception?

[welch]

I am not sure how many people here can see these two Facebook threads that have blown up in the last few days (Brian Engler has about 2600 friends, so maybe there are a few here)
But I wanted to point them out:

WIS conference
Online harassment

The gist is discussion started by Engler about the WIS conference in May and online harassment in general.

Some of the main speakers are Harriet Hall and Barbara Drescher on one side and Ophelia Benson and Ellen Beth Wachs on the other.
I don't know how I feel about posting FB threads that are private to friends of the OP, but this is an important talk, and I know a few posters have sent links of this to Ron Lindsay (so he cannot pretend this is not going on.)

Here is a small section from the online harassment one:
http://i.imgur.com/MGH2mzQ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/87s6jzK.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/9hYqCx2.jpg

BAAHAHAHAHAHAH...So now she's worried that emails don't comply with rules of evidence? Because they can be faked? OMG, HOW DO WE KNOW THAT'S EVEN OPHELIA!!!!


Wait, she's an evasive, stupid twat. Of course it's Ophelia.

[welch]

Many of the "Muslims" I have known were about as religious (or irreligious) as the nominal Christians I've known.

They are worse than the honest fundamentalists by providing cover for their abominable actions.
Why can nobody see this elephant in the room, for fux sake?

Because least in the US we already have enough idiots screaming about sharia every time someone brown who isn't Mexican walks by, and I don't see the point in being an amateur paranoid nitwit when there are so many profess nails handling it?

[Apples]

Impressed by drosera's work in that "Relief for the Heartsick" thread where Nerd says 'Xit.' A rather comprehensive demolition of EG myths and misrepresentations, and pretty much total domination of the horde. Methinks Dawkins couldn't have done it better himself.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... heartsick/

[Git]

The problem is, muslims are brown. When they talk you should really be shutting up and listening. Don't 'splain. Just take a breather and realise... It's possible that they know more about the truth of Islam than you do. You might learn something. You'll be shutting up for about 6 months. A lot of them have the Qu'ran memorised.

And the fucking irony is that the majority of muslims aren't actually brown. But only to dumbass Western simpering idiots who think the turban brown-skin thing is the typical muslim. In other words, they're the fucking racists.

[Git]

Re: Liberals defending Islam.

It might be different in the USA, where "Liberal" is an insult directed at anybody who is not Right Wing, but in the UK, it tends to be the Hard Left, SWP, George Galloway types, etc. who have a fetish-like fascination with defending the "beleaguered" Muslims.

I'm a Harry's Place type Liberal, and the defenders of all things Islam really fucking hate Harry's Place. They also tend to dislike atheists and secularists as well. Those concepts are a bit too "white", "western", and "imperialist" for them to take.

I'm not a liberal (even though I'm probably more fucking "liberal" than most liberals on many, err, liberal matters), but Harry's Place is an awesome website. I'm a regular below-the-line commenter on there.

Which one I am, I'll leave to your imagination or fapping.

[Git]

Re: Liberals defending Islam.

It might be different in the USA, where "Liberal" is an insult directed at anybody who is not Right Wing, but in the UK, it tends to be the Hard Left, SWP, George Galloway types, etc. who have a fetish-like fascination with defending the "beleaguered" Muslims.

I'm a Harry's Place type Liberal, and the defenders of all things Islam really fucking hate Harry's Place. They also tend to dislike atheists and secularists as well. Those concepts are a bit too "white", "western", and "imperialist" for them to take.

I'm not a liberal (even though I'm probably more fucking "liberal" than most liberals on many, err, liberal matters), but Harry's Place is an awesome website. I'm a regular below-the-line commenter on there.

Which one I am, I'll leave to your imagination or fapping.

[Tigzy]

Impressed by drosera's work in that "Relief for the Heartsick" thread where Nerd says 'Xit.' A rather comprehensive demolition of EG myths and misrepresentations, and pretty much total domination of the horde. Methinks Dawkins couldn't have done it better himself.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... heartsick/

I'm most amused by his 'Nerd of Redhead program' comment. Of course, Nerd responded, without any apparent irony, in typical fashion. I also see that Nerd's exclamation variable now carries *FLOOSH* - a slang term for female ejaculation - as opposed to *POOF*. Clearly, the Nerd app's context-appropriate algorithm could do with a little fine tuning.

I also have a suspicion that SGBM is trolling him somewhat...

Also nice to see Ophelia doubling-down so unashamedly on being called out for her quote-mining. :lol:

[Git]

Oops, just saw your best wishes, NippleTwister. and I will reciprocate.

Problem is, usage of "A Jew" or "The Jews", is given the history of people using the exact same phraseology, extremely fucking troublesome. By all means, criticise Bibi, but as soon as you stray into blood libel tropeology, you're asking for trouble.

Remember Amanda Marcotte and her usage of Herge-style racist stereotypes for her books?

You may think you're being cutting edge by depicting Obama as a chimp, but there's just some fucking stuff you don't touch with a bargepole.

[Metalogic42]

It makes me want to be free again. Here some people are, able to post three times in a row, but I have to suffer minor to major lag. Who knows when this post will go up - if people will have a chance to read it with this fast moving forum. Moderation is just a step down from a ban in such a fast moving place. If you aren't prepared to ban someone you shouldn't moderate them here, either.

Maybe if you whine about it just a little bit more, you'll get what you want.

But probably not. :violin:

[Git]

Frankly, people who happen to be muslims get a raw deal all over, especially the Palestinians. I happen to think that in humanity's long and shitty history, the creation of Israel is a low point.

Perish a thought that the Jews have a state eh?

In the 70-odd years of the Arab-Israeli conflict, less people have died than in the last few months in Syria.

Less people have died than in on average in a single day of WW2, or even probably WW1.

But no, that the Jews finally have a nation state like almost every other people on the planet is the "low point".

FFS.

[Git]

I have problems with some aspects of the culture that travels along with Islam. Doesn't make me a racist.

If, say, some part of the culture of a certain tribe in Papouasie-New-Guinea involves slicing me open and eating my entrails as written in the sacred texts of Dudaï The Giant Newt, and I disaprove of that, does that make me a racist? Or a culturist, maybe?

Is this orthodox or reformist Dudaïsm?

http://oots.wikia.com/wiki/First_Church_of_Banjo

[codelette]

It's the same thing here. All the anti-immigrants hit is just "I hate Mexicans".

I'm especially amused when various Cuban legislators get on a high horse about immigration given that they have such an awesome loophole. Basically, if someone fleeing Cuba sets foot on american soil, they are automatically legal. There literally cannot be an illegal immigrant from cuba in this country by law.

Now that's some fucking privilege.

I think that a certain groups of Cubans from Florida see themselves more or less the same way as Israelis. They are this divine group of people that had to flee persecution and their destiny is to return to the promised land.
Is really not all Cubans that behave this way, the ones that do are lovingly refer to as "gusanos". I'll google something and post it here.

[codelette]

PS. I believe that the US allowed that loophole because the big majority of Cubans leaving the island are anti-Fidel and against socialism/communism.

[Tigzy]

The difference is that when we attack Christianity, we are attacking our own culture.

Speak for your fuckin self, you parochial cunt.
Count me out of your "we".

[muslims] are NOT "nice guys". They support, fund, and provide cover, (even if only by their inaction), to the worst fucken ideology in the history of the planet!!
"Nice guys", apart from their minor trivial flaw of assisting misogynist murders!
Fuck off.

Sorry MKG, but I've known muslims who are indeed nice guys, and could quite easily be counted out of your categorical 'not nice guys' statement (as for inaction - I refer you to the British Muslims for Secular Democracy, and what they are about: http://www.bmsd.org.uk/pages.asp?id=2). So please take your own advice, and speak for yourself rather than others. It's not as if you're lacking any experience in the matter, after all.

[ReneeHendricks]

Hey there, 'pitters :) My guy is home safe and sound (as of yesterday). We still don't know anything but at least the mass is gone.

Once again, I'm not going to even try to catch up. Anything fun going on?

[Lsuoma]

It makes me want to be free again. Here some people are, able to post three times in a row, but I have to suffer minor to major lag. Who knows when this post will go up - if people will have a chance to read it with this fast moving forum. Moderation is just a step down from a ban in such a fast moving place. If you aren't prepared to ban someone you shouldn't moderate them here, either.

Maybe if you whine about it just a little bit more, you'll get what you want.

But probably not. :violin:

Why so pessimistic, ML42? Perhaps I ought to give Euwoo my cell 'phone number so s/h/it can call and let me know there's a post for moderation.

Let's see - 1-800-382-5633. Yeah, that'll work...

[Lsuoma]

BTW, I am ordained in this church. I'm empowered to perform marriages in many states!

[Git]

Hey there, 'pitters :) My guy is home safe and sound (as of yesterday). We still don't know anything but at least the mass is gone.

Give your guy a hug from me, Renee.

[Reap]

Because for Stephanie Zvan to know me as well as she thinks she does she would have to be psychic...
http://reapsowradio.com/graphics/zvanpsychic2.png

[Philip of Tealand]

Hey there, 'pitters :) My guy is home safe and sound (as of yesterday). We still don't know anything but at least the mass is gone.

Once again, I'm not going to even try to catch up. Anything fun going on?

Ophelia is having trouble explaining her "terminological inexactitudes" - people still aren't "getting it"

:D

[cunt]

Impressed by drosera's work in that "Relief for the Heartsick" thread where Nerd says 'Xit.' A rather comprehensive demolition of EG myths and misrepresentations, and pretty much total domination of the horde. Methinks Dawkins couldn't have done it better himself.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... heartsick/

I'm most amused by his 'Nerd of Redhead program' comment. Of course, Nerd responded, without any apparent irony, in typical fashion. I also see that Nerd's exclamation variable now carries *FLOOSH* - a slang term for female ejaculation - as opposed to *POOF*. Clearly, the Nerd app's context-appropriate algorithm could do with a little fine tuning.

Noticed that a Christopher Hitchens namedrop subroutine has been added. :lol:

[Mykeru]

Hey there, 'pitters :) My guy is home safe and sound (as of yesterday). We still don't know anything but at least the mass is gone.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uYpG06oCgoo/U ... 600/cw.jpg
"The Mass. It's gone."

[Mykeru]

Hey there, 'pitters :) My guy is home safe and sound (as of yesterday). We still don't know anything but at least the mass is gone.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uYpG06oCgoo/U ... 600/cw.jpg
"The Mass. It's gone."