If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

somedumbguy wrote:I'd close them up in an iron maiden for a few weeks.

Oh oh.
Perhaps this discussion should be diverted to the music thread before it gets too ugly.

Testing, testing, one two. One two.
Hey! Anyone here from Ulon Baton? Woo!!

Well I am sure no one wants to see decius go, he is a constant font of insight. and I don't want to put Lsuoma in that spot, and I certainly don't want the pit to be seen as a hate sight, so bye all.

nippletwister wrote:

jimthepleb wrote:

somedumbguy wrote:
The truth is that in my several months here, I've never seen one comment from anyone encouraging rape, torture, or death. And the equal truth is that all I've heard about from Atheism+ and Feminism is the reverse: restrictions on speech and behavior and the condoning and encouraging of making society manifestly unfair to many people based on the color of their skin or the speech they make.

You were right.
Until today.
Whilst what you said above was not incitement nor a threat, it most certainly was a general societal suggestion that encouraged rape as a form of punishment.
Way to go dickhead.
I was actually beginning to warm to many of the MRA's here. Andrew is often perceptive and a font of data and others, including you, have impressed me with NOT being the revolting misogynist arseholes others would lead one to believe.
Then you come out with this utter bollocks.
Fuck off and sober up you cunt.

For what it's worth, though I don't identify as such, I've read a good bit of MRA stuff and that kind of shit is very rare, even in the comments. The few who go there get banned on AVFM for that kind of shit.

"We all have bloody thoughts"

I heard that on Deadwood.

Oh christ I agree. Whilst there are some disturbing outliers, as in any nascent movement, within the MRM, on the whole I have been won over by the considered and rational way they deal with the viciousness of the feminists. Which is why it is so disappointing to see someone who usually articulates these ideas so well, screwing himself with two or three poorly written polemics i suspect he will regret in the morning.
...and more personally the wanker just made me feel i need to moralfag for arseholes like Marcotte and Watson. :evil:
Anyway I'm going to follow Andrew's advice and step away from the keyboard for tonight. I have other crap going on that may be causing me to behave intemperately. SDG might I gently suggest you do the same?

Somedumbguy, what about we all agree to remove those posts and you refrain from posting in anger in the future?

somedumbguy wrote:Taslima is a doctor who in 2013 spouts off that men can't be raped.

She has somehow reached her current age without the realisation that there exist these "penal" institutions that we call "gaols", "prisons", or even "jails", where males being raped is at least an hourly occurrence.
Precious flower. It must be all butterflies, flowers, perfume & candy to be that naïve!

Steersman wrote: (elided inner quotes to satisfy some piece of software)
That some people might well deserve to die, I can see some justification for. After all, Western society seems to have at least largely condoned that sentence, with more than a little justification, on Bin Laden and various Islamists. And maybe from some perspectives there might well be some who deserve to be raped – Catholic priest pedophiles, or most pedophiles, for examples – or to be tortured.

However to even suggest that that might apply in any particular case, particularly the latter two – you ok with that comment suggesting that Watson should be so targetted? – seems a rather slippery slope, that things can very quickly get out of hand when one lays about with gay abandon that two-edged sword.

Which, I think, relates to the general question of the harassment that Watson and company have been subjected to and which I referred to in an earlier comment. Seems to me that there is the rather problematic phenomenon whereby the epithets are chasing themselves in some cycle of escalation in which those voicing them try to outdo previous ones in terms of nastiness and venom. All good fun – until someone loses an eye.

Reminds me of having seen a documentary on the Green River Killer, in which the killer, Gary Ridgway, said something to the effect that he thought that he was doing society a favour by killing the prostitutes who were his primary targets. In which case one might reasonably question whether he was entirely culpable for those crimes, or whether some part of the blame might not be laid at the feet of society in general.

All I will say since I am leaving, but found this post, is that as the Deadwood quote goes, "We all have bloody thoughts". I think the mistake is to demand people suppress all acknowledgement of that or demand instabans, permabans, talibans for expressing out of frustration those bloody thoughts.

Huge difference between thinking hell, I would gladly torture that SOB that did X, versus voting time and again, against the death penalty and for strong rape laws.

HTH

Lsuoma wrote:
The Slyme Pit : where everyone gets the ban hammer

They should be optional as I do like them so why not have them as a smiley instead
That way they will not be messing up my nice clean posts man : I am serious now
Too much clutter and one can get distracted from what someone has to actually say

masakari2012 wrote:I read through that JREF forum every couple of weeks to see what's going on. They had a few good points, which I took away from there. But the Pit is far superior.

Quite.
One gets the feeling that they are continually applying the brakes on what they really want to say, in order to appear to be "true" skeptics to lurkers.
It is as much a form of self-censorship as the A-pussers exercise.
It is "skeptically correct" language, applied to a tedious extent.

I find that there is only so much of JREF sooper-careful oh-so-skeptical language that I can stomach at one sitting.
Whilst I find it marginally more digestible than the A✞ ipecac, it is not by very much.

This place seems to be the only place on the interwebs where one can cogently state one's mind, and expect to be rationally understood.

somedumbguy wrote:

nippletwister wrote:

jimthepleb wrote:

somedumbguy wrote:
The truth is that in my several months here, I've never seen one comment from anyone encouraging rape, torture, or death. And the equal truth is that all I've heard about from Atheism+ and Feminism is the reverse: restrictions on speech and behavior and the condoning and encouraging of making society manifestly unfair to many people based on the color of their skin or the speech they make.

You were right.
Until today.
Whilst what you said above was not incitement nor a threat, it most certainly was a general societal suggestion that encouraged rape as a form of punishment.
Way to go dickhead.
I was actually beginning to warm to many of the MRA's here. Andrew is often perceptive and a font of data and others, including you, have impressed me with NOT being the revolting misogynist arseholes others would lead one to believe.
Then you come out with this utter bollocks.
Fuck off and sober up you cunt.

For what it's worth, though I don't identify as such, I've read a good bit of MRA stuff and that kind of shit is very rare, even in the comments. The few who go there get banned on AVFM for that kind of shit.

"We all have bloody thoughts"

I heard that on Deadwood.

I like that Deadwood quote.

Re: jimthepleb, it's like most stuff. Since I am not Paul Elam, and I am not Dean Esmay and I am not Warren Farrell, and I am not Glenn Sacks, then poor old jim the pleb's problem whereby up until tonight he was almost leaning towards MRAs but now after he perceives a stupid statement he thinks I made well it discredits all of them including Andrew --

Well come on, that says more about jimthepleb than it does about Mens Rights.

I still think of myself as a feminist regardless of all the shit that Marcotte and so many other feminists spew. Their stupid idiocy says nothing about whether women and men should be treated equally.

So poor jim the pleb.

Ah fuck you, you self-righteous prig. You have merely chilled my continuing exploration of a subject that is new to me. I did not dismiss anyone, even you, for your idiotic, semi-literate ramblings. You're too pissed to read with any comprehension or write with any coherence.
'Poor jimthepleb' ...pity from a condescending twat like you is worthless.

What i actually said was: 'Fuck off and sober up.'

somedumbguy said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 276#p59276):

You're right Lsuoma, that statement should be condemned and you are right to do so.

Hey, somedumbguy, thanks for that. You were making me nervous. My faith is, tentatively, restored.

decius said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 285#p59285):

So, until this is resolved in some way, I will have to abstain from further posting.

Fuckin hell, another Aunt Liz! Did you miss the retraction? Or have you no empathy, understanding, or awareness that we are all fallible; we all make mistakes; we all say things we do not truly intend and wish we had never said?

decius, if, as it seems, you have helped to drive someone from this forum simply because of your fucking prudish holier-than-thou self-assumed inerrantcy, just fuck off; dry up.

Michael K Gray wrote:

somedumbguy wrote:I'd close them up in an iron maiden for a few weeks.

Oh oh.
Perhaps this discussion should be diverted to the music thread before it gets too ugly.

Testing, testing, one two. One two.
Hey! Anyone here from Ulon Baton? Woo!!

Oh, FFS, no Eddie, PLEASE!!!

Lsuoma wrote:

Michael K Gray wrote:

somedumbguy wrote:I'd close them up in an iron maiden for a few weeks.

Oh oh.
Perhaps this discussion should be diverted to the music thread before it gets too ugly.

Testing, testing, one two. One two.
Hey! Anyone here from Ulon Baton? Woo!!

Oh, FFS, no Eddie, PLEASE!!!

http://humanfacebook.files.wordpress.co ... maiden.jpg


:popcorn:

AndrewV69 wrote:Well you are probably familiar with the concept of not shouting fire in a crowded theatre...

[youtube]X3Hg-Y7MugU[/youtube]

I'll leave this for the capricious one:
[youtube]4PBjhM-OlOg[/youtube]

somedumbguy wrote:

Steersman wrote: (elided inner quotes to satisfy some piece of software)
That some people might well deserve to die, I can see some justification for. After all, Western society seems to have at least largely condoned that sentence, with more than a little justification, on Bin Laden and various Islamists. And maybe from some perspectives there might well be some who deserve to be raped – Catholic priest pedophiles, or most pedophiles, for examples – or to be tortured.

However to even suggest that that might apply in any particular case, particularly the latter two – you ok with that comment suggesting that Watson should be so targetted? – seems a rather slippery slope, that things can very quickly get out of hand when one lays about with gay abandon that two-edged sword.

Which, I think, relates to the general question of the harassment that Watson and company have been subjected to and which I referred to in an earlier comment. Seems to me that there is the rather problematic phenomenon whereby the epithets are chasing themselves in some cycle of escalation in which those voicing them try to outdo previous ones in terms of nastiness and venom. All good fun – until someone loses an eye.

Reminds me of having seen a documentary on the Green River Killer, in which the killer, Gary Ridgway, said something to the effect that he thought that he was doing society a favour by killing the prostitutes who were his primary targets. In which case one might reasonably question whether he was entirely culpable for those crimes, or whether some part of the blame might not be laid at the feet of society in general.

All I will say since I am leaving, but found this post, is that as the Deadwood quote goes, "We all have bloody thoughts". I think the mistake is to demand people suppress all acknowledgement of that or demand instabans, permabans, talibans for expressing out of frustration those bloody thoughts.

Huge difference between thinking hell, I would gladly torture that SOB that did X, versus voting time and again, against the death penalty and for strong rape laws.

HTH

While I sympathize, methinks the problem, at least in part, is that “the thought is party to the deed”. One thing to entertain the thought – rather problematic when that shades into setting up house-keeping with it. Although one might argue – as you may have suggested – that there is only some relatively small degree of difference between what passes for justice in Western societies, at least in some cases, and that in some Islamic ones ….

I thought that at some time I would need to post something like this, but it has been longer than I expected.

There are a few things that will get you permanently banned as soon as I find out, with no appeal:

1. Being Mabus posting a la Mabus.
2. Posting child pornography.
3. Posting spam or warez or malware or links to same.
4. Posting if you have already been permanently banned for any reason.

Other things that MAY get you banned, but where the ban may be negotiable, or, if already imposed may be reversed, are:

1. Posting stuff that I am advised will possibly lead to personal legal liability for me. On of my (seven!) sisters-in-law is a criminal trial attorney whom I have consulted WRT the Pit, and will continue so to do. Her decision, as my attorney, informs my decision in every case of potential legal liability. I may or may not decide to discuss specifics in public (i.e. on the Pit), but I will post announcements if possible.
2. Boring my fucking arse off. It's a big arse, so this is not instantaneous. But once it hits the floor, it needs a lot of re-hoisting.
3. Posting stuff that you have been explicitly asked/told not to. I MAY listen to communications here, but I may choose not to respond. If I tell you not to post stuff, the minimum reason is that I don't want you to. In such a situation the following applies:

a) Is your name Lsuoma Californensis? If not, fuck off.
b) If so, are you the Lsuoma Californensis that owns this board? If not, fuck off.

Addendum: this has been a busy night, and I hope that nobody (in alphabetic order Decius, Somedumbguy)will leave the Pit permanently because of it. Tomorrow is a Latter Day.

Lsuoma wrote:3. Posting stuff that you have been explicitly asked/told not to. I MAY listen to communications here, but I may choose not to respond. If I tell you not to post stuff, the minimum reason is that I don't want you to.

You were kidding about Eddie, right?

Lsuoma, I have a few more sheckels that I wish to shove up your in-box.
Will your original PayPal ID still work?

:popcorn:

Metalogic42 wrote:

Lsuoma wrote:3. Posting stuff that you have been explicitly asked/told not to. I MAY listen to communications here, but I may choose not to respond. If I tell you not to post stuff, the minimum reason is that I don't want you to.

You were kidding about Eddie, right?

"From ze day he was born,
He was trouble.
He was ze thorn
In his mutter's side."

Michael K Gray wrote:Lsuoma, I have a few more sheckels that I wish to shove up your in-box.
Will your original PayPal ID still work?

Thanks. Yes.

Lsuoma wrote: Tomorrow is a Latter Day.

I loved the shit out of that album. Still to see the show!

And now, something completely different:
(so you think you have issues?)

Why, aged 29, I have decided I'll NEVER have sex again
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... again.html

Lisa Smith, from Buckinghamshire, finds sex 'repellent'
Has had three lovers, and lived with two of them
Wants to find a man with whom she can have a celibate relationship
Will adopt children if she ever decides she wants them

And the followup:

'I'm destined to be a crazy cat lady!' Asexual, 29, who said she'd never have sex again is looking for a man... but admits a celibate relationship is a 'tall order'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... order.html

Vegan Lisa, 29, from Buckinghamshire, who doesn't want kids, hopes to find a man who will embrace her asexuality
Says she wants potential partner to accept cuddling as extent of intimacy
If the man of her dreams wanted sex she would say no. 'I'd feel like I was compromising myself and I would detest them for it'
Since writing for the Mail Lisa has heard from other asexuals but also had spiteful comments like: 'You can't get a man and this is how you cover it up'

somedumbguy wrote:

nippletwister wrote:

somedumbguy wrote:

16bitheretic wrote:

somedumbguy wrote:That's my free speech talking.

Fair enough, I wasn't saying you shouldn't have a right to say it, I was just pointing out my opinion of such statements. I don't feel that calls for rape or torture have any use beyond just venting of anger or some way of trying to get attention through cheap shock value. I'd certainly never support any real life applications of said wishes, regardless of how much I dislike the person, especially after I've frequently called out and criticized the Catholic Church and the US prison system for their avoidance of responsibility in seemingly systemic problems of unprosecuted rape.

Good thing I don't influence the laws then like Dworkin, MacKinnon, Koss, and Marcotte have.

Somedumbguy:I understand having some rage, dude...but come on, that was shitty wankery. You sound like a cross between a radfem and some of my religious-right-death-penalty-loving relatives. Well, three murders isn't a radfem genocide of all males, but the shittiness is the same. Get help if you're that fucking angry. If we killed every stooge that put forth a harmful idea, we'd have no more new ideas. And you are now in the "harmful ideas" area.

I have to deal with a court system where the norm, the default, the stock policy separates wonderful fathers from their children every day.

Am I angry to what radfems like Dworkin and Mackinnon have done to your courts? You bet. Am I angry as to how Marcotte practices her journalism (that is through terrible lies) you bet.

Am I saying every stooge that puts forth a harmful idea should be killed? Of course not.

Am I arguing that perhaps in some universe they would deserve it.... Hell that's just karma dude.

If you are an example of a "wonderful father" that the court if biased against I would say things are working as intended. You are a baboon, a fool who thinks committing acts of violence against others (i.e. rape) is justifiable since they say things you disagree with. I would say that you must be young and immature but that doesn't excuse the idiocy you have put to text.

John Greg, like I said I have no wish for SDG to go, but those posts are incompatible both with the fucking law of where I and others live and with shared ethos. So, I was just suggesting to remove them rather than make an idiotic fetish of an abomination sold as free speech.

rocko2466 wrote:

Lsuoma wrote: Tomorrow is a Latter Day.

I loved the shit out of that album. Still to see the show!

Saw it in NYC on opening night, and here in Seattle a couple of weeks ago. It really is a blast.

Lsuoma wrote:

rocko2466 wrote:

Lsuoma wrote: Tomorrow is a Latter Day.

I loved the shit out of that album. Still to see the show!

Saw it in NYC on opening night, and here in Seattle a couple of weeks ago. It really is a blast.

I was in NYC with my missus late 2011. We went to buy tickets, but the only tickets were obstructed view so we thought we'd give it a miss. Hugely regret it! I listened to the album on repeat for like two months straight.

rocko2466 wrote:I was in NYC with my missus late 2011. We went to buy tickets, but the only tickets were obstructed view...

These seats are reserved for the A✝ mental-cripples who claim to be blind-'enhanced'.
Trouble is, they are all such delicate flowers¹ that none of them can ever leave their Gran's attic.
And these misogynistic concerts do not offer the comical trigger-warnings which are their opiate of choice.

________________________
¹ "Flowers" may be offensive as they are a plant's sex organs. And, as we know, sex is not a fit subject for the A✝ dinner table, or any table for that matter, except perhaps a table in a brothel.
(Blackadder fans can stay schtum.)

Hm. I didn't read SDG's posts as an advocation of people going out to attack, and more like a stream of thought of someone righteously fucked off. But I can see why there's legal risk involved there and I'm glad everyone has "stood down" and recognised this.

On a side note I personally use readers-of-Marcotte as a way to find out which people I no longer wish to associate with. I suspect I'm motivated by the fact I have a male (white) child, and that reading those kinds of things or encouragement of that kind of thought process is dangerous to him and his future. I think the views of her and Taslima are utterly abhorrent, however it's my understanding that Al spoke to Taslima and encouraged her to research male rape and its rate of occurrence. I have also definitely noticed more reporting of male rape in the news in recent years.

Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223

This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.

rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223
This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.

Not even an acid resistant niqab, or a caustic burkha?
One does not need a pH D in chemistry to understand the benefits of one of these Burqas modelled by a misogynist:
Antacid بُرقع‎

Michael K Gray wrote:

rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223
This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.

Not even an acid resistant niqab, or a caustic burkha?
One does not need a pH D in chemistry to understand the benefits of one of these Burqas modelled by a misogynist:
Antacid بُرقع‎

Hot.

rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223

This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.

The reason I'm against face covering is that security systems will increasingly rely on facial recongition software to prevent crimes or identify perpetrators. Face covering interferes with the effectiveness of this software. And I don't see why one group gets a pass on face covering.

rayshul wrote:

Michael K Gray wrote:Antacid بُرقع‎

Hot.

Yes, I imagine that they would be.

comslave wrote:

rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223

This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.

The reason I'm against face covering is that security systems will increasingly rely on facial recongition software to prevent crimes or identify perpetrators. Face covering interferes with the effectiveness of this software. And I don't see why one group gets a pass on face covering.

And very valid arguments in terms of social interactions and general identification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban ... e_covering

Oh dear, I've been such a misogynist yesterday evening! I dared share the stage with two extremely talented female singers, and I've stollen all their girl power with my maleness.

You wish. I was so ashamed of my vocal performances compared to theirs, I had to refuse payment after the show. This from someone with an already negative bank account balance.

(disclaimer: I seem to still be a bit drunk from yesterday, and wanted to post something so my position as most prolific poster here doesn't dwindle...)

Videos coming soon, in the music topic.

comslave wrote:

rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223

This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.

The reason I'm against face covering is that security systems will increasingly rely on facial recongition software to prevent crimes or identify perpetrators. Face covering interferes with the effectiveness of this software. And I don't see why one group gets a pass on face covering.

This is, I think, a start:

In December 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Muslim women must remove niqabs in some cases when testifying in court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niq%C4%81b#Canada

Lsuoma wrote:I thought that at some time I would need to post something like this, but it has been longer than I expected.

There are a few things that will get you permanently banned as soon as I find out, with no appeal:

1. Being Mabus posting a la Mabus.
2. Posting child pornography.
3. Posting spam or warez or malware or links to same.
4. Posting if you have already been permanently banned for any reason.

Other things that MAY get you banned, but where the ban may be negotiable, or, if already imposed may be reversed, are:

1. Posting stuff that I am advised will possibly lead to personal legal liability for me. On of my (seven!) sisters-in-law is a criminal trial attorney whom I have consulted WRT the Pit, and will continue so to do. Her decision, as my attorney, informs my decision in every case of potential legal liability. I may or may not decide to discuss specifics in public (i.e. on the Pit), but I will post announcements if possible.
2. Boring my fucking arse off. It's a big arse, so this is not instantaneous. But once it hits the floor, it needs a lot of re-hoisting.
3. Posting stuff that you have been explicitly asked/told not to. I MAY listen to communications here, but I may choose not to respond. If I tell you not to post stuff, the minimum reason is that I don't want you to. In such a situation the following applies:

a) Is your name Lsuoma Californensis? If not, fuck off.
b) If so, are you the Lsuoma Californensis that owns this board? If not, fuck off.

Addendum: this has been a busy night, and I hope that nobody (in alphabetic order Decius, Somedumbguy)will leave the Pit permanently because of it. Tomorrow is a Latter Day.

Whay SDG posted was, in my opinion, the first time anyone here has posted anything even close to the sort of rape threats that the FTB crowd claim is a constant feature of this place.
To hell with the silly Steffalump type jokes, SDG's stuff is exactly what they have been waiting for for the past seven months since the forum began.
I don't think we can simply sweep it under the carpet.
You list a set of rules (and despite what people might think of free speech or moderation, it is implicit in the running of a site like this that there must be some rules.)
Is it too much to ask to include a couple of extra rules that have, over time, developed into the norm for behavior on this forum. These are:
Don't make threats of violence against people - including the sort of youtube comment style 'threats' that Watson relies on - which is exactly what SDG did.
Don't doxx people (meaning giving out personal information that is not easily googled, and even if it is, doesnt contain home or work addresses)
This place is like a public bar to a lot of us. We come here to laugh and goof about while catching up on the latest FTB shenanigans. With those stupid rape wishes SDG has done the equivalent of purning up and taking a huge shit on the floor. That sort of behavior - and the failure to condemn that behavior - is exactly the reason why the MRA movement is doomed to remain at arms length from most of us here.
Thanks very much SDG, you complete and utter fuckwit.

comslave wrote:

rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223

This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.

The reason I'm against face covering is that security systems will increasingly rely on facial recongition software to prevent crimes or identify perpetrators. Face covering interferes with the effectiveness of this software. And I don't see why one group gets a pass on face covering.

ATTENTION ALL Citizens of the A+ State!
Citizen ComSlave has expressed the will of the goodthink Kommentariat admirably!
Big Bother admires ComSlave's willingness to change his name to comport with Newspeak, and deny the double-atheism-plus-ungood of personal privacy!

The A+Theism Executive Komittee has decided that the anti-state unthink misogynist dodge of face-coverings are to be countered by placing a Telescreen® in every home.
Thanks to de-rationing and the free market the price of nutrition-free bread has now gone down to eighty-five Roubles an ounce.
And here is good news for state house-persons, the following goods are now in the shops:
Plastic and sawdust elephant night-shirts
Second hand concrete parachutes
Artificial explodable woollen bloomers
Men's self igniting tailless shirts - with anti thunder-sheet attachment.
There are unlimited supplies in the shops!!

We love Big PZ!

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photo ... ture_3.jpg

Michael K Gray wrote:For the few animal lovers¹ amongst us:
Thirsty koala follows walker, drinks three bottles of water
Dateline, mid-summer, South Australia, (a bit up the road from here):
A THIRSTY koala has made the rare move of climbing down a tree before following a walker along suburban roads, drinking three bottles of water over an hour.

Woo-Hyang Sun wrote:"I was walking near the Black Hill Conservation Park entrance (when) my husband spotted a koala in a tree," Mrs Sun said.
"We took some photos, and initially the koala looked scared.
"She kept looking at me and looked like she wanted something, so I poured some water in my palm, and the koala drank it at once.

But that was not enough.
As the temperature began to rise, the thirsty koala became even more ambitious.

635361-koala.jpg

After sustaining long eye contact with Mrs Sun's husband for several minutes, the koala succumbed to the prospect of a cool drink of water and climbed down from the tree, not at all phased by her suburban surroundings.
Not only did the koala hit the streets of Athelstone for a leisurely stroll, it almost threatened to get behind the wheel of Mrs Sun's car.
"When I opened the car door, she was poking her head to look inside my car, I guess for more water?," she said.

â‹®

"After she finished the whole bottle, she was waving her hand, I guess, for more water.
"She followed me for an hour and ended up drinking three bottles altogether - definitely the friendliest koala I've ever seen."

Read the whole story with more cute piccies at http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/thirsty-k ... s-of-water

_________________________
¹ Punishable by 5 years imprisonment and a $50,000 fine

And this is probably the reason why the whole of humanity is not doomed yet.

A very pleasant sight on a sunday morning.

Michael K Gray wrote:

bhoytony wrote:There seem to be people here who assume that everybody who is posting on this blog want the exact same outcome as themselves. Sorry, but your goals aren't necessarily the goals of anybody but yourself.

Too true. Nearly a "deepity"
About the only commonality between us is a distaste for hypocrisy.

You are correct. I hadn't stopped to think about what it was on the common side which is interesting and a bit depressing

Dick Strawkins wrote:

Lsuoma wrote:I thought that at some time I would need to post something like this, but it has been longer than I expected.

There are a few things that will get you permanently banned as soon as I find out, with no appeal:

1. Being Mabus posting a la Mabus.
2. Posting child pornography.
3. Posting spam or warez or malware or links to same.
4. Posting if you have already been permanently banned for any reason.

Other things that MAY get you banned, but where the ban may be negotiable, or, if already imposed may be reversed, are:

<snip>

Addendum: this has been a busy night, and I hope that nobody (in alphabetic order Decius, Somedumbguy)will leave the Pit permanently because of it. Tomorrow is a Latter Day.

<snip>

Don't make threats of violence against people - including the sort of youtube comment style 'threats' that Watson relies on - which is exactly what SDG did.

<snip>

And what evidence do you adduce to support that contention? For instance, how about this statement of SDG’s:

I'd say Marcotte needs a shit ton more rape in her life. Mary Koss, Nasrim Tasleema who say that men can't be raped? Fine, fuck them both. Get raped chickadees. Fuck off AND DIE.

Is that any more of a credible “threat” of rape than the similar one directed at Watson that virtually all and sundry here and have pooh-poohed as just the complaints of a bunch of “stupid, whiny, witless Baron Munchausens”?

Methinks you might find his other comments along the same line to be equally extreme but hardly credible as actionable threats. “Sauce for the goose” and all that ….

DeepInsideYourMind wrote:

comslave wrote:

rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223

This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.

The reason I'm against face covering is that security systems will increasingly rely on facial recongition software to prevent crimes or identify perpetrators. Face covering interferes with the effectiveness of this software. And I don't see why one group gets a pass on face covering.

And very valid arguments in terms of social interactions and general identification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban ... e_covering

In Australia there were a series of crimes by someone in a burkha, as well as a court case where a woman had attacked a cop (I think! memory hazy) but could not be convicted because she refused to remove her burka. Therefore it was impossible to identify her. There's a lot of fuckery that goes on with this sort of thing (down with this sort of thing!).

Michael K Gray wrote:

comslave wrote:

rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223

This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.

The reason I'm against face covering is that security systems will increasingly rely on facial recongition software to prevent crimes or identify perpetrators. Face covering interferes with the effectiveness of this software. And I don't see why one group gets a pass on face covering.

ATTENTION ALL Citizens of the A+ State!
Citizen ComSlave has expressed the will of the goodthink Kommentariat admirably!
Big Bother admires ComSlave's willingness to change his name to comport with Newspeak, and deny the double-atheism-plus-ungood of personal privacy!

The A+Theism Executive Komittee has decided that the anti-state unthink misogynist dodge of face-coverings are to be countered by placing a Telescreen® in every home.
Thanks to de-rationing and the free market the price of nutrition-free bread has now gone down to eighty-five Roubles an ounce.
And here is good news for state house-persons, the following goods are now in the shops:
Plastic and sawdust elephant night-shirts
Second hand concrete parachutes
Artificial explodable woollen bloomers
Men's self igniting tailless shirts - with anti thunder-sheet attachment.
There are unlimited supplies in the shops!!

We love Big PZ!

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photo ... ture_3.jpg

Riiight-on there brother Michael!

And aspirins inexorably lead to mainlining heroin and mother’s milk is the straight-and-narrow path to being a Bowery bum on Skid Road!

Steersman wrote:And aspirins inexorably lead to mainlining heroin and mother’s milk is the straight-and-narrow path to being a Bowery bum on Skid Road!

I only JUST took you off "ignore" to find that, true to form, you are still your vapidly humour-free contrarian self.
Oh well, back to ignore mode, you pointless tape-worm.
That experiment in optimism over experience lasted all of 53 seconds.

rayshul wrote:In Australia there were a series of crimes by someone in a burkha, as well as a court case where a woman had attacked a cop (I think! memory hazy) but could not be convicted because she refused to remove her burka. Therefore it was impossible to identify her. There's a lot of fuckery that goes on with this sort of thing (down with this sort of thing!).

That is basically not true.
In a case where a burka-wearing female was pulled over by Aussie cops for dangerous driving (by dint of obscured vision), she elected to take the case to court, rather than pay the fine. Her defence was based on Religious Privilege trumping state laws. In Australia!
If I remember rightly, her defence was dismissed, and the fine & demerit points upheld.

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:

rocko2466 wrote:
My fave picture from her post about "men hate woman's bodies" -
http://freethoughtblogs.com/taslima/fil ... having.jpg

That's not a shaving accident, unless the woman (? Proof of gender?) has Parkinson's.

It's clearly self harm, either real or staged: check out the multiple slashes across the heel. Nice idea if you're into that kind of thing: gets nice chafed by shoes, but hidden by trousers, so provides an all-day reminder of how worthless you are while remaining hidden from the public.

I have to ask: did you mean this comment to be sarcastic, or did you fall off the crib in your infancy?

Steersman wrote: Is that any more of a credible “threat” of rape than the similar one directed at Watson that virtually all and sundry here and have pooh-poohed as just the complaints of a bunch of “stupid, whiny, witless Baron Munchausens”?

Methinks you might find his other comments along the same line to be equally extreme but hardly credible as actionable threats. “Sauce for the goose” and all that ….

I didn't say SDG made a credible threat. I think, however, he made the kind of idiotic, nasty wowbagger style remark that has always been criticized in the past by the pit.
Is it too much to ask people to show some degree of responibility to the other members of the pit?
You don't post (legal) porn here because that will make the site inaccessible to those viewing at certain workplaces. You don't post spam or warez because it's illegal or timewasting.
If you can't behave in an adult and responsible way in the slymepit then you risk doing something that gets the entire forum closed. Isn't that why both Eucliwood AND that idiot who posted the (similated?) cp picture were banned?

Dick Strawkins wrote:

Steersman wrote: Is that any more of a credible “threat” of rape than the similar one directed at Watson that virtually all and sundry here and have pooh-poohed as just the complaints of a bunch of “stupid, whiny, witless Baron Munchausens”?

Methinks you might find his other comments along the same line to be equally extreme but hardly credible as actionable threats. “Sauce for the goose” and all that ….

I didn't say SDG made a credible threat. I think, however, he made the kind of idiotic, nasty wowbagger style remark that has always been criticized in the past by the pit.
Is it too much to ask people to show some degree of responibility to the other members of the pit?
You don't post (legal) porn here because that will make the site inaccessible to those viewing at certain workplaces. You don't post spam or warez because it's illegal or timewasting.
If you can't behave in an adult and responsible way in the slymepit then you risk doing something that gets the entire forum closed. Isn't that why both Eucliwood AND that idiot who posted the (similated?) cp picture were banned?

Cue Bhoytony to hypocritically observe that he doesn't give a tinker's toss about your opinion, yet bothers to post an intense selfish rant against it...

Frankie Boyle:
"A merry-go-round is a just a Sushi-bar for Pædophiles"

Michael K Gray wrote:

rayshul wrote:In Australia there were a series of crimes by someone in a burkha, as well as a court case where a woman had attacked a cop (I think! memory hazy) but could not be convicted because she refused to remove her burka. Therefore it was impossible to identify her. There's a lot of fuckery that goes on with this sort of thing (down with this sort of thing!).

That is basically not true.
In a case where a burka-wearing female was pulled over by Aussie cops for dangerous driving (by dint of obscured vision), she elected to take the case to court, rather than pay the fine. Her defence was based on Religious Privilege trumping state laws. In Australia!
If I remember rightly, her defence was dismissed, and the fine & demerit points upheld.

Are you talking about Carnita Matthews? or someone else?
It wasn't a series of crimes, just one (but according to news paper reports had a history of other traffic offences). She was convicted of making a false statement to police in 2010 and sentence to six months in prison. Carnita Matthews then appealed that conviction and it was over-turned, and then she tried to get court costs from the police but was that turned down by the judge. If she was the person in side the burqa (and the apellantt judge could not be sure which is why he overturned the conviction) then she did indeed get away with it because her face was covered.

Thanks, Lsuoma.

Rayshul, check your PM.

Dick Strawkins, check your PM please.

Breathe deeply and become the chocolate

[youtube]YOn4vg0JIAo[/youtube]

Deeply disappointed that Stephanie Zvan failed to include my photoshop of her:

http://i.imgur.com/8XKpPV4.jpg

If you look closely you will see that it's her face. It's a still from The Wicker Man, a thriller about a radfem society :) . She'll have to admit that I didn't make her look bad; not physically, at least.

decius wrote:Dick Strawkins, check your PM please.

OK, so apparently the comments that SDG originally posted have been edited and his original words were much more in line with the sort of violent rape fantasies that we have collectively condemned.
Part of the reason I post here is because I found it the one place in the online atheist community where people were taking seriously the problem of hypocrisy.
There is a line to be drawn in the sand here.
Bad taste jokes about someone being a fatty are juvinile and silly.
Calling for people to be raped is so far over the line that I am seriously wondering whether we have been set up.
The alternative, and probably closer to the truth is that we have some crossover with the MRA community who don't seem to take this sort of shit seriously.
I suggest we do take it seriously.

Jan Steen wrote:Deeply disappointed that Stephanie Zvan failed to include my photoshop of her:

http://i.imgur.com/8XKpPV4.jpg

If you look closely you will see that it's her face. It's a still from The Wicker Man, a thriller about a radfem society :) . She'll have to admit that I didn't make her look bad; not physically, at least.

I recognized the allusion - and I was going to complain to you about it.
Even though it's from the remake, the character you've painted as Svan is, I think, the same as the character called 'Willow' in the original 1973 movie, where she was played by the incredibly sexy Britt Eckland.
The dance scene in the pub bedroom is one of the most erotic scenes ever in a mainstream movie.
Well it was, until you done that photoshop.
Now I'll never be able to watch it again without thinking of Svan.
:twisted:

didymos wrote:

masakari2012 wrote:I read through that JREF forum every couple of weeks to see what's going on. They had a few good points, which I took away from there. But the Pit is far superior.

It's not about which forum is teh bestest. I posted that because watching an APlusser deploy what is usually a winning SJW tactic and having it go completely awry is pretty funny.

It's the kind of thread Notung should approve of. No profanity, no gratuitous insults, "lively" but hardly acrimonious debate. I see at least one refugee from The Borg found there way there which, AFAIAC, is a still win for the good guys. The 'Pit isn't for everyone, but we're still here. And what would The Borg do for an enemy if we weren't? (That's not really a serious question - they can invent them out of thin air.)

Dick Strawkins wrote:
Part of the reason I post here is because I found it the one place in the online atheist community where people were taking seriously the problem of hypocrisy.
There is a line to be drawn in the sand here.
Bad taste jokes about someone being a fatty are juvinile and silly.
Calling for people to be raped is so far over the line that I am seriously wondering whether we have been set up.
The alternative, and probably closer to the truth is that we have some crossover with the MRA community who don't seem to take this sort of shit seriously.
I suggest we do take it seriously.

I couldn't agree more.

Dick Strawkins wrote:I recognized the allusion - and I was going to complain to you about it.
Even though it's from the remake, the character you've painted as Svan is, I think, the same as the character called 'Willow' in the original 1973 movie, where she was played by the incredibly sexy Britt Eckland.
The dance scene in the pub bedroom is one of the most erotic scenes ever in a mainstream movie.
Well it was, until you done that photoshop.
Now I'll never be able to watch it again without thinking of Svan.
:twisted:

Yeah, that sucks. I deeply, deeply and most humbly apologise. :oops: