Bunkspubble!

[Lurkion]

THE POPE IS RESIGNING.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-21411304

Which person speaks the word of God if there are two Popes (one former and one current) alive? What if they disagree?

In unrelated news. The Disney Corporation after acquiring Lucas Film has announced an open casting call for the new Senator Palpatine bio-pic.

Senator Papaltine.

[SPACKlick]

A chimpanzee is not a monkey

[High Horse] Yes it is, all apes are monkeys, Catarrhines to be precise (common name Old World Monkeys), this confusion really gripes my ass.

Primates are divided into the Haplorhines and Strepsirrhines (basically dry and wet nosed)
Haplorhines are divided into the Tarsiers and the Anthropoids/Simians (note simian = Monkey)
Simians are divided into the Catarrhines and Platyrrhines (old and new world)
The catarrhines are divided into the Cercopiths and hominoids (Old world monkeys and Apes)

Since the common ancestor of any two monkeys, is necessarily, if monkey means anything at all, a monkey.
And since anything more closely related to A than B is to A where A and B are in the same monophyletic group is ALSO part of that monophyletic group, all Apes are Monkeys.

People are monkeys, African monkeys, Old World monkeys, monkeys monkeys.

:whistle:

You're racist. Regardless of whether you're right.

(Yeah, to be fair, I googled it before saying it and came away confused so just went with it. I'm with skeptics. I'll be called out if I'm wrong lol)

[youtube]4A-dMqEbSk8[/youtube]

Good explanation in that video.

[AnonymousCowherd]

1) Woman claims Dawkins is sexist because he used the word 'histrionic'

Methinks this may be because of the incidental resemblance between 'histrionic' & 'hysterical'.
'Histrionic' is merely Latin for 'actor'. It is not sexist in any way shape nor form.

It reminds me of those fucking ignorant fuckwit cunting idiots who aver that the adjective 'niggardly' is racist, the intercoursingly ignorant bastards.

(1853)
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr= ... 22&f=false

Not saying the word is gender specific now, but there is/was a history there.

For hysterical, not histrionic, right?

Yes. MKG is right (this time!).

A few misguided people started to use "histrionic" instead of "hysterical" back in the 70s or so, perhaps out of some kind of misguided political correctness, but the meanings are quite different in ye olde psychopathology. Hysteria was an actual problem (even if the term is no longer used), and it wasn't confined only to women. But being "histrionic" made it sound like the patient was malingering (only "acting") and it already took some effort to get the problem accepted as "real".

Histrionic may be getting a run as a personality disorder but, if so, that's still not "hysteria" as it was used.

[Apples]

The behavior of the mods over there reminds me of one of those cheesy prison movies.
Some librul lawyer is driving through the deep south and looks at a cop the wrong way and gets stuck in jail, whereupon he is targeted by the malevolent and troglogytic prison guards. Anything he says to remind them of the law is used as an excuse to stick him in the punishment hole for another week.

Yep! The A+holes are back! It's not really A+ without the mods' small-town-dirty-cop authoritarian personalities setting the tone:

nope

bye

Did you just permanently ban marine rachel without discussion with any other staff because you didn't like the tone of her post?

nope.

then what?

you should stop derailing this thread, mood2.

Apologies, as I've been banned from the forum matters section I'll start a thread in I and A, please respond there.

Ceepolk,

You say you didn't unilaterally ban marine rachel because she made a sarcastic post in a thread you were participating in with an opposing view point.

Please explain why you did.

because I'm tired of the continously snipey behaviour both in general about the forum and in specific towards Kassiane, and she refuses to stop doing it.

You being tired of someone's posting behaviour doesn't make that behaviour against the rules.

It means anyone who gets on your nerves is liable to get banned. That's inappropriate use of your mod privileges

Actually, mood2, someone continuously sniping at another member is against the rules because it can constitute harassment.

Not that ceepolk can't speak for herself, but what the ever-loving fuck do you actually think you know about whether her actions were unilateral? What do you think you know about what the staff has or has not discussed with regard to any other member of these forums? There's a reason you were banned from forum matters and it wasn't so you could shit up the rest of the forums peddling your "calling people out for being assholes is worse than being an asshole" garbage.

In the future, if you have a problem with a post, use the report feature. Locking this thread.

ETA: Take a week off while we figure out what to do with you.

Take a week off "while we figure out what to do with you." Classic.

piegasm's sig: "Too often we honor swagger and bluster and the wielders of force; too often we excuse those who are willing to build their own lives on the shattered dreams of others." -Robert F. Kennedy

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3923

[CommanderTuvok]

In this exchange between Julian Francisco and Karla Porter, Julian flounces in a RAGE and tells Karla she is "prissy". Isn't that usually a comment aimed at women females? Since Dawkins is getting the usual heat from the moronic Baboon horde over "histrionic", a word supposedly directed at women females, doesn't make Julian Francisco is a raving sexist, misogynist, racist shitstain?

http://storify.com/ElevatorGATE/convers ... cula-karla

[Philip of Tealand]

The behavior of the mods over there reminds me of one of those cheesy prison movies.
Some librul lawyer is driving through the deep south and looks at a cop the wrong way and gets stuck in jail, whereupon he is targeted by the malevolent and troglogytic prison guards. Anything he says to remind them of the law is used as an excuse to stick him in the punishment hole for another week.

Yep! The A+holes are back! It's not really A+ without the mods' small-town-dirty-cop authoritarian personalities setting the tone:

nope

bye

Did you just permanently ban marine rachel without discussion with any other staff because you didn't like the tone of her post?

nope.

then what?

you should stop derailing this thread, mood2.

Apologies, as I've been banned from the forum matters section I'll start a thread in I and A, please respond there.

Ceepolk,

You say you didn't unilaterally ban marine rachel because she made a sarcastic post in a thread you were participating in with an opposing view point.

Please explain why you did.

because I'm tired of the continously snipey behaviour both in general about the forum and in specific towards Kassiane, and she refuses to stop doing it.

You being tired of someone's posting behaviour doesn't make that behaviour against the rules.

It means anyone who gets on your nerves is liable to get banned. That's inappropriate use of your mod privileges

Actually, mood2, someone continuously sniping at another member is against the rules because it can constitute harassment.

Not that ceepolk can't speak for herself, but what the ever-loving fuck do you actually think you know about whether her actions were unilateral? What do you think you know about what the staff has or has not discussed with regard to any other member of these forums? There's a reason you were banned from forum matters and it wasn't so you could shit up the rest of the forums peddling your "calling people out for being assholes is worse than being an asshole" garbage.

In the future, if you have a problem with a post, use the report feature. Locking this thread.

ETA: Take a week off while we figure out what to do with you.

Take a week off "while we figure out what to do with you." Classic.

piegasm's sig: "Too often we honor swagger and bluster and the wielders of force; too often we excuse those who are willing to build their own lives on the shattered dreams of others." -Robert F. Kennedy

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3923

Bloody hell, why does anyone WANT to post on that site?

Your every word subject to the scrutiny of the mods who lets face it, are complete peerless bastards

You can't type ANYTHING!

"We don't like the way you typed "yes" - you did it in a way that some would consider sexist and possibly racist - take a week off!"

"But...I agreed with you all!"

"Speaking back, BANNED!"

[Lsuoma]

We could hold the Slymepit conference at a strip club, that would repel most of the FTP'ers.

We'd probably get Fluevog Fanny.

[windy]

It's been going on for a while.

Here's a response to it.

and here's the same person showing the hypocrisy of Jen McCreight (even though, to be fair, she didn't write the guest post - still, she hosted it).

Femalegate seems like a trial balloon for all the later craziness. I remember checking Jen's blog at the time and there were several other posts where "female" was used as a noun (since people were trying to claim she'd only used it as an adjective), but then I thought "Jen is feeling piled on at the moment, no use pressing her about the hypocrisy, this will probably all blow over soon". D-oh!

http://www.blaghag.com/2010/02/blag-hag ... sults.html
"We had 335 males, 135 females, and 7 transgendered readers" Hmm...

[SPACKlick]

The behavior of the mods over there reminds me of one of those cheesy prison movies.
Some librul lawyer is driving through the deep south and looks at a cop the wrong way and gets stuck in jail, whereupon he is targeted by the malevolent and troglogytic prison guards. Anything he says to remind them of the law is used as an excuse to stick him in the punishment hole for another week.

Yep! The A+holes are back! It's not really A+ without the mods' small-town-dirty-cop authoritarian personalities setting the tone:

nope

bye

Did you just permanently ban marine rachel without discussion with any other staff because you didn't like the tone of her post?

nope.

then what?

you should stop derailing this thread, mood2.

Apologies, as I've been banned from the forum matters section I'll start a thread in I and A, please respond there.

Ceepolk,

You say you didn't unilaterally ban marine rachel because she made a sarcastic post in a thread you were participating in with an opposing view point.

Please explain why you did.

because I'm tired of the continously snipey behaviour both in general about the forum and in specific towards Kassiane, and she refuses to stop doing it.

You being tired of someone's posting behaviour doesn't make that behaviour against the rules.

It means anyone who gets on your nerves is liable to get banned. That's inappropriate use of your mod privileges

Actually, mood2, someone continuously sniping at another member is against the rules because it can constitute harassment.

Not that ceepolk can't speak for herself, but what the ever-loving fuck do you actually think you know about whether her actions were unilateral? What do you think you know about what the staff has or has not discussed with regard to any other member of these forums? There's a reason you were banned from forum matters and it wasn't so you could shit up the rest of the forums peddling your "calling people out for being assholes is worse than being an asshole" garbage.

In the future, if you have a problem with a post, use the report feature. Locking this thread.

ETA: Take a week off while we figure out what to do with you.

Take a week off "while we figure out what to do with you." Classic.

piegasm's sig: "Too often we honor swagger and bluster and the wielders of force; too often we excuse those who are willing to build their own lives on the shattered dreams of others." -Robert F. Kennedy

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3923

Bloody hell, why does anyone WANT to post on that site?

Your every word subject to the scrutiny of the mods who lets face it, are complete peerless bastards

You can't type ANYTHING!

"We don't like the way you typed "yes" - you did it in a way that some would consider sexist and possibly racist - take a week off!"

"But...I agreed with you all!"

"Speaking back, BANNED!"

Did anyone look at marine rachels posting history? Doesn't seem to be a lot of sniping outside the moderators thread, or am I missing something?

[JackSkeptic]

The behavior of the mods over there reminds me of one of those cheesy prison movies.
Some librul lawyer is driving through the deep south and looks at a cop the wrong way and gets stuck in jail, whereupon he is targeted by the malevolent and troglogytic prison guards. Anything he says to remind them of the law is used as an excuse to stick him in the punishment hole for another week.

Yep! The A+holes are back! It's not really A+ without the mods' small-town-dirty-cop authoritarian personalities setting the tone:

nope

bye

Did you just permanently ban marine rachel without discussion with any other staff because you didn't like the tone of her post?

nope.

then what?

you should stop derailing this thread, mood2.

Apologies, as I've been banned from the forum matters section I'll start a thread in I and A, please respond there.

Ceepolk,

You say you didn't unilaterally ban marine rachel because she made a sarcastic post in a thread you were participating in with an opposing view point.

Please explain why you did.

because I'm tired of the continously snipey behaviour both in general about the forum and in specific towards Kassiane, and she refuses to stop doing it.

You being tired of someone's posting behaviour doesn't make that behaviour against the rules.

It means anyone who gets on your nerves is liable to get banned. That's inappropriate use of your mod privileges

Actually, mood2, someone continuously sniping at another member is against the rules because it can constitute harassment.

Not that ceepolk can't speak for herself, but what the ever-loving fuck do you actually think you know about whether her actions were unilateral? What do you think you know about what the staff has or has not discussed with regard to any other member of these forums? There's a reason you were banned from forum matters and it wasn't so you could shit up the rest of the forums peddling your "calling people out for being assholes is worse than being an asshole" garbage.

In the future, if you have a problem with a post, use the report feature. Locking this thread.

ETA: Take a week off while we figure out what to do with you.

Take a week off "while we figure out what to do with you." Classic.

piegasm's sig: "Too often we honor swagger and bluster and the wielders of force; too often we excuse those who are willing to build their own lives on the shattered dreams of others." -Robert F. Kennedy

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3923

Bloody hell, why does anyone WANT to post on that site?

Your every word subject to the scrutiny of the mods who lets face it, are complete peerless bastards

You can't type ANYTHING!

"We don't like the way you typed "yes" - you did it in a way that some would consider sexist and possibly racist - take a week off!"

"But...I agreed with you all!"

"Speaking back, BANNED!"

It's good entertainment though. A+ has given me a lot of laughs and for that I am grateful. I'd love to say 'I told you so' as it was apparent from the start it was nothing to do with atheism but a blatant attempt at power grabbing and thought control. It is arguably the most repressive forum I have ever seen and I resent them hijacking the word 'atheist'.

If they had any decency they would drop the term Atheist and rename it to something else as Secular Social Justice did when they split off to try and maintain some sort of sanity and open discussion.

[Lsuoma]

I have wondered how much damage to the Atheist community these A+ clowns are doing. Here's an article which I have little disagreement with http://takimag.com/article/when_atheist ... t_locklin/. I took this link from the JREF forums so credit to Zooterkin there for linking it.

This is one reason I am against A+ and people like PZ, they are causing damage to our already brittle public image. They are attempting to undo all the good atheists have done over the years through tireless work just to promote their brand of political belief.

From the article:

In the second tier you have attention-seeking primates such as PZ Myers desecrating a communion wafer and a Koran, and, to be fair, one of Dawkins’s books. It’s a performance about as edifying as flinging poo from the monkey cage.

Ha! He's been sussed out!

[windy]

Since the common ancestor of any two monkeys, is necessarily, if monkey means anything at all, a monkey.
And since anything more closely related to A than B is to A where A and B are in the same monophyletic group is ALSO part of that monophyletic group, all Apes are Monkeys.

People are monkeys, African monkeys, Old World monkeys, monkeys monkeys.

:whistle:

Correct, but I prefer the more inclusive term "lobe-finned land fish"

[jimthepleb]

Ok so my missus is asking, and i really don't have an answer:
If she isn't female, or a woman or a girl or a lady...what is xe? and how should i describe xir?...i presume 'the person i have a civil partnership with who is not a man' would be a nono as it defines xir in terms of what xe is not and xir relationship to me... it's a frigging quagmire!

[CommanderTuvok]

and here's the same person showing the hypocrisy of Jen McCreight (even though, to be fair, she didn't write the guest post - still, she hosted it).

Femalegate seems like a trial balloon for all the later craziness. I remember checking Jen's blog at the time and there were several other posts where "female" was used as a noun (since people were trying to claim she'd only used it as an adjective), but then I thought "Jen is feeling piled on at the moment, no use pressing her about the hypocrisy, this will probably all blow over soon". D-oh!

http://www.blaghag.com/2010/02/blag-hag ... sults.html
"We had 335 males, 135 females, and 7 transgendered readers" Hmm...[/quote]
Fucking hilarious. They are a neverending gift that keeps giving.

[EdgePenguin]

Caught you hoggling, Kabuki-face! :D

http://i.imgur.com/uKto08v.png

But rest assurred, o vacuous soul of the pomo skeptical movement, no rumours will get started about this. Really, you're not that important. However much you may think otherwise.

That was sort-of obvious, it was surprising to see people jumping on it here (specifically people jumping on Ophelia for joining in with their joke).

Agreed. These idiots give us so much real ammunition there's no need to conjure it up.

I'm NOT saying people here are deliberately making shit up; what I'm saying is that those people make such routine asses out of themselves that it's almost automatic to assume that everything they say is nefarious or idiotic.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

I'm sorry, but both of you (AbsurdWalls and Gumby) seem to be jumping on that response a bit too much. I'm guessing you have more information than the other forum members who commented on this?

People such as Benson are beyond Poe. Using the fact that someone can't tell when they are jokingly being awful or seriously being awful, to try and gain forum status (or whatever), is kind of immature.

[JackSkeptic]

The behavior of the mods over there reminds me of one of those cheesy prison movies.
Some librul lawyer is driving through the deep south and looks at a cop the wrong way and gets stuck in jail, whereupon he is targeted by the malevolent and troglogytic prison guards. Anything he says to remind them of the law is used as an excuse to stick him in the punishment hole for another week.

Yep! The A+holes are back! It's not really A+ without the mods' small-town-dirty-cop authoritarian personalities setting the tone:

nope

bye

Did you just permanently ban marine rachel without discussion with any other staff because you didn't like the tone of her post?

nope.

then what?

you should stop derailing this thread, mood2.

Apologies, as I've been banned from the forum matters section I'll start a thread in I and A, please respond there.

Ceepolk,

You say you didn't unilaterally ban marine rachel because she made a sarcastic post in a thread you were participating in with an opposing view point.

Please explain why you did.

because I'm tired of the continously snipey behaviour both in general about the forum and in specific towards Kassiane, and she refuses to stop doing it.

You being tired of someone's posting behaviour doesn't make that behaviour against the rules.

It means anyone who gets on your nerves is liable to get banned. That's inappropriate use of your mod privileges

Actually, mood2, someone continuously sniping at another member is against the rules because it can constitute harassment.

Not that ceepolk can't speak for herself, but what the ever-loving fuck do you actually think you know about whether her actions were unilateral? What do you think you know about what the staff has or has not discussed with regard to any other member of these forums? There's a reason you were banned from forum matters and it wasn't so you could shit up the rest of the forums peddling your "calling people out for being assholes is worse than being an asshole" garbage.

In the future, if you have a problem with a post, use the report feature. Locking this thread.

ETA: Take a week off while we figure out what to do with you.

Take a week off "while we figure out what to do with you." Classic.

piegasm's sig: "Too often we honor swagger and bluster and the wielders of force; too often we excuse those who are willing to build their own lives on the shattered dreams of others." -Robert F. Kennedy

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3923

Bloody hell, why does anyone WANT to post on that site?

Your every word subject to the scrutiny of the mods who lets face it, are complete peerless bastards

You can't type ANYTHING!

"We don't like the way you typed "yes" - you did it in a way that some would consider sexist and possibly racist - take a week off!"

"But...I agreed with you all!"

"Speaking back, BANNED!"

Did anyone look at marine rachels posting history? Doesn't seem to be a lot of sniping outside the moderators thread, or am I missing something?

I don't know but I have seen Mood2 post many times and always seem to toe the party line. The fact they got a 'week off' is telling'. The mods there really have lost it. There will be no one left before long and they will only have themselves to blame.

If A+ actually did what they said they would do in their mission statement I suspect there would be several thousand posting members there by now. I went there myself to see if I wanted to be part of it (even though I disliked the idea in principle I could have overlooked that for substance) Either they always intended it as a bait and switch site or they are truly incompetent, including those that appointed them.


If anyone at A+ is reading this you are more than welcome to join here where your comments will not be censored and you may actually get a discussion that is useful to you.

[Philip of Tealand]

It's good entertainment though. A+ has given me a lot of laughs and for that I am grateful. I'd love to say 'I told you so' as it was apparent from the start it was nothing to do with atheism but a blatant attempt at power grabbing and thought control. It is arguably the most repressive forum I have ever seen and I resent them hijacking the word 'atheist'.

If they had any decency they would drop the term Atheist and rename it to something else as Secular Social Justice did when they split off to try and maintain some sort of sanity and open discussion.

Decency? That lot?

These idiots could teach creationists a thing or two about forum moderation!

Where the hell did they learn all that from? Big Brother in the film 1984?

They are terrible - I say give it a few months and all who will be posting is one Mod - who has banned the rest of them!

[TedDahlberg]

Dawkins under fire for describing a woman as histrionic.
:o
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/stat ... 3713736704
bad richard :naughty:

Count that as another thing I have against SJWs; how they rob language of playfulness and depth.

Actually, PZ and his troop (pride, gaggle, herd?)

Flange.

Sounds like a Merkin problem - what about elsewhere in the industrialized world? Here in the US, high-speed internet access in one's home or apartment really is a kind of privilege, and there are many people who simply can't afford it. What about the UK, Australia, France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Canada, Brazil, Japan, etc.?

I'm paying about $40/month for 30 Mbit/s (ADSL; theoretical max for me is probably 60) in Sweden.

According to The Swedish Post and Telecom Authority, in October 2011 49% of all households and businesses had access to broadband with a theoretical speed of at least 100 Mbit/s. According to the same report the number of households and businesses who completely lacked access to broadband (defined as speeds of at least 1 Mbit/s) was 800. 99.99% of households and 99.97% of businesses had access to broadband.

I didn't know this before I went looking just now, I have to admit I'm a bit surprised and impressed. Anyway, basically if you can afford a device capable of connecting to the Internet, you can afford high-speed access, albeit what high-speed means depends on where you live.

[jimthepleb]

It's been going on for a while.

Here's a response to it.

and here's the same person showing the hypocrisy of Jen McCreight (even though, to be fair, she didn't write the guest post - still, she hosted it).

Femalegate seems like a trial balloon for all the later craziness. I remember checking Jen's blog at the time and there were several other posts where "female" was used as a noun (since people were trying to claim she'd only used it as an adjective), but then I thought "Jen is feeling piled on at the moment, no use pressing her about the hypocrisy, this will probably all blow over soon". D-oh!

http://www.blaghag.com/2010/02/blag-hag ... sults.html
"We had 335 males, 135 females, and 7 transgendered readers" Hmm...

I was the same, after she flounced i respected her wishes to be left alone, assuming she would leave the sjw batshittery behind her. Now she's gone for me on twitter, so the gloves are off. (NO NOT A THREAT A TURN OF PHRASE LURKERS) Is she addressing the massive problem of the under-represention of women on her blog?

[welch]

However, this seems a little more problematic:

It’s all nonsense. Here’s how you solve this problem. Ignore the lot of them, and us. (And I say this as a frequent poster on the ‘pit.) Neither side is indicative of any great movement. Neither side is indicative of anything serious. There is no schism, this is not a real problem.

Seems to me that while the FfTB-Pit-Skepchick battle is not the entire war – for an analogous example, Merrill’s Marauders in Burma versus Eisenhower in Europe, some of the same principles of some importance are in play which makes the “game” worth the candle. And it seems to me that one of the primary ones is the question of the viability of postmodernism which brings along no small amount of feminism in its wake – at least of the “gender” variety – and which is, I think, no small part of the dispute with FtTB and Skepchick. And for somewhat of an elaboration on the topic I’ll recommend this review of Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science by scientists Paul Gross and Norman Levitt, as well as this obituary of Levitt in Michael Shermer’s Skeptic which includes, as well as Levitt’s review of some postmodernist tripe, this brief summary of the problem:

Norman [Levitt] was best known, however, for his relentless defense of science, particularly against those in the academy — generally labeled as social constructivists, deconstructionists, or postmodernists — who tended to lump science in with other cultural traditions as “just another way of knowing” that is no better than any other tradition, and thereby reduce the scientific enterprise to little more than culturally-determined guess work at best and hegemonic power mongering at worst.

Methinks the barbarians are already well ensconced in academia rather than being merely at the gates.

But again, this is only anything beyond normal disagreement because there's this, quite frankly bizarre attitude that everyone who is an atheist/skeptic should agree on well, everything. That if there are public disagreements OMG WE ARE WEAK. Well, that's kind of silly. We're talking about a group that is at best a loose confederation and acting like they should all present some united front. Were anyone being sane at this point, they could say "no, we are not all the same. We are going to disagree on stuff, most of it stupid, regularly. But we are confident enough in our overall agreement on major points that we feel public disagreements show not weakness or "rupturing", but rather a thriving movement, unafraid to confront conflict."

However, Atheists and skeptics are just as insecure as everyone else, and so, here we are.

[welch]

The military is not like in the old days, and they take those comments very seriously. If it's a friendly environment where everyone understand that they're joking and the subject of the comment doesn't see it as a problem, then it may be passable, though it still may not be "okay" (we would have to get more info on each scenario to determine). Same as how my best friends and I crack mild jokes on each other at times. We all understand that we're simply joking about the stereotypes for laughs and not each other, but joking like that to someone else who we don't know may not be the best thing, since they might not understand.

I know because I was subjected to racist comments in 4 different incidents, given the time and the circumstances of what was happening in the world. One of them went to Captain's mast and was "awarded" with a demotion in rank, restriction, and extra duty. One of them called me a racial slur while in a foreign port and wanted to fight, but his friends dragged him away, and my chain of command was unable to do anything because I didn't know what division he worked for. One of them was pending charges while I was transferring at the time (so I didn't know what the outcome was), and one of them sincerely apologized and didn't see why he was being racist (though his own supervisor took me aside and told me that if I press charges, he would back me up), and I decided to drop it because I felt that he didn't intend it seriously, and made a bad choice in his attempt at a joke, although his announcement about me (a complete stranger to him at the time) when I walked into his workcenter was very prejudice.

If it was a crack about Julian's race and he wasn't sure about it, he could tell them not to call him a chimpanzee and that he will take actions if they continue. After that, any subsequent remarks can be taken up his chain of command. If someone above him rejects it, he can go to the person above him/her, and so forth, until it is resolved. Embracing victim-hood is a poor way to handle it, especially when the military have policies to address these issues.

Even if it's a remark which is not necessarily racist, but hurts him, it can still be dealt with. What matters is that he does not feel any pressure or experience a negative environment which will hinder him from performing his military duties. The people responsible will be dealt with, and if necessary, they can be discharged. Most naval officers are QUICK to jump in and help any enlisted sailor who experience such things, even if they are not directly in the person's chain of command.

But that's IF he's in the military. He may be referring to some other type of job, in which case, what Karla Porter said would apply. Most civilian jobs have the same type of policies in place.

I'm calling bullshit on the whole thing. Having worked military, government and private sector, these days, slurs are taken VERY seriously, because if not, the company has to write rather large checks. In the case of the military, it fucks up readiness, and people might die. Julian is just acquiring pity points.

he's such a spic.

[JackSkeptic]

Caught you hoggling, Kabuki-face! :D

http://i.imgur.com/uKto08v.png

But rest assurred, o vacuous soul of the pomo skeptical movement, no rumours will get started about this. Really, you're not that important. However much you may think otherwise.

That was sort-of obvious, it was surprising to see people jumping on it here (specifically people jumping on Ophelia for joining in with their joke).

Agreed. These idiots give us so much real ammunition there's no need to conjure it up.

I'm NOT saying people here are deliberately making shit up; what I'm saying is that those people make such routine asses out of themselves that it's almost automatic to assume that everything they say is nefarious or idiotic.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

I'm sorry, but both of you (AbsurdWalls and Gumby) seem to be jumping on that response a bit too much. I'm guessing you have more information than the other forum members who commented on this?

People such as Benson are beyond Poe. Using the fact that someone can't tell when they are jokingly being awful or seriously being awful, to try and gain forum status (or whatever), is kind of immature.

Speaking for myself I also took their tweets as tongue in cheek as I said earlier. I won't apologise for an impression I have as it is simply an impression. Others will differ and their opinion has EQUAL validity based on the evidence available. Until there is further evidence that's all I have and considering how unimportant it is that's all I need.

[welch]

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 0&start=75

Holy shit, they've all gone completely batshit insane. Atheism Plus: where being a blind, deaf, amputee isn't objectively bad.

Mmm, I've apparently been reading too much there, because their reaction didn't strike me as at all unexpected. It is funny how Mr Samsa keeps saying he is NOT saying "X" and they (esp Setar) keep telling him he IS saying "X", though.

That thread does explain this thread, from which it was apparently split:
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3923 ("The Banning of Marine Rachel").

So, hey, probably 2 bannings from this*, pretty efficient, wouldn't you say.

*Because you don't really think they're going to let Mr.Samsa stay, do you?

________

This post in the original thread linked above, from ceepolk, is kinda telling (bolding added):

Re: PZ: if Soc&Pol are off agenda "well then, fuck skepticis
Postby ceepolk » Mon Feb 11, 2013 1:39 am

There are not enough mods online to make discussion of this thread timely, so I am locking it until we've had a chance to discuss it.

With the number of moderators currently active, I must stress that this will probably take days to accomplish.

(Onamission5 is the last mod I know of who stepped down, but that was at least a week ago, I think)

I will give Samsa credit. He's not backing down, he's not being distracted, and on the whole, he's being remarkably rational and consistent. I feel bad for him, because he's teaching calculus to a slug, but still, good effort.

[welch]

http://i1158.photobucket.com/albums/p60 ... 2d0d9f.png

Narcissistic assholes and their privileged, indolent, all-expenses-paid conference-attending lifestyles.

That is a telling (and a bit funny) exchange if you understand 'corporate speak'. OB, on the other hand, is just grubbing for a free trip.

Pretty fucking immature and weird to put him on the spot by doing it on twitter. One thing that makes Ophie so bizarre is that she's like a self-centered teenager in an old lady's body.

Yes, immature and a stupid game overall. One could interpret that a prior conversation had taken place with Lindsey where he implied CFI would be interested in sending her if not for other obligations on her part. Her gambit was to lever Law's interest in an effort to change Lindsey's mind and get a free international trip out of the deal. Lindsey is having none of it. The problem with a public backdoor outreach like that is the risk of a public takedown, which is what she received, albeit in polite corporate speak. Lindsey cut it off before Law had a chance to respond. A secondary problem with the method is Lindsey is likely to remember such a stupid game. The smarter move would have been a direct phoned call to Law. No email record left and more personal. The hint is that she isn't in with Law to be comfortable enough doing that, or her interpersonal skills aren't very good (never saw that coming!) or she is just lazy. None of those represent qualities you want in a high level corporate representative. :naughty:

Did I ever mention that I'm a corporate strategist?

:lol:

I think you guys are reading waaaaaaaaaay too much into this. I saw it as those people just joking around with each other.

I know the temptation is to find something awful in everything these people say or do, but let's not resort to unevidenced straining at gnats. You're trying too hard.

pretty much. It's just a cigar this time.

[JackSkeptic]

It's good entertainment though. A+ has given me a lot of laughs and for that I am grateful. I'd love to say 'I told you so' as it was apparent from the start it was nothing to do with atheism but a blatant attempt at power grabbing and thought control. It is arguably the most repressive forum I have ever seen and I resent them hijacking the word 'atheist'.

If they had any decency they would drop the term Atheist and rename it to something else as Secular Social Justice did when they split off to try and maintain some sort of sanity and open discussion.

Decency? That lot?

These idiots could teach creationists a thing or two about forum moderation!

Where the hell did they learn all that from? Big Brother in the film 1984?

They are terrible - I say give it a few months and all who will be posting is one Mod - who has banned the rest of them!

I'm waiting for the day a mod bans themselves :D

[welch]

I have wondered how much damage to the Atheist community these A+ clowns are doing. Here's an article which I have little disagreement with http://takimag.com/article/when_atheist ... t_locklin/. I took this link from the JREF forums so credit to Zooterkin there for linking it.

This is one reason I am against A+ and people like PZ, they are causing damage to our already brittle public image. They are attempting to undo all the good atheists have done over the years through tireless work just to promote their brand of political belief.

A+ isn't doing any damage, nor are FTB. To the common person, the biggest sign that Atheists are assholes are some of the stupid shit that comes out of Silverman's mouth or some of the sillier lawsuits. (YES, I GET IT, IN GOD WE TRUST IS A DICK IN YOUR EYE. LET IT GO, WE HAVE MORE IMPORTANT BATTLES TO WAGE.)

Seriously, sometimes Atheists need to take a few and see how they actually look to the outside world. They'd discover that PZ/A+ are the least of their worries.

[EdgePenguin]

[spoiler]

Caught you hoggling, Kabuki-face! :D

http://i.imgur.com/uKto08v.png

But rest assurred, o vacuous soul of the pomo skeptical movement, no rumours will get started about this. Really, you're not that important. However much you may think otherwise.

That was sort-of obvious, it was surprising to see people jumping on it here (specifically people jumping on Ophelia for joining in with their joke).

Agreed. These idiots give us so much real ammunition there's no need to conjure it up.

I'm NOT saying people here are deliberately making shit up; what I'm saying is that those people make such routine asses out of themselves that it's almost automatic to assume that everything they say is nefarious or idiotic.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

I'm sorry, but both of you (AbsurdWalls and Gumby) seem to be jumping on that response a bit too much. I'm guessing you have more information than the other forum members who commented on this?

People such as Benson are beyond Poe. Using the fact that someone can't tell when they are jokingly being awful or seriously being awful, to try and gain forum status (or whatever), is kind of immature.

[/spoiler]

Speaking for myself I also took their tweets as tongue in cheek as I said earlier. I won't apologise for an impression I have as it is simply an impression. Others will differ and their opinion has EQUAL validity based on the evidence available. Until there is further evidence that's all I have and considering how unimportant it is that's all I need.

Which is the correct attitude to have; what I was commenting on was the people who seem to want to score intellectual points on the back of this matter, which is as you said kind of unimportant.

This kind of pettiness is what characterizes FtB and A+, the only difference there is that the metric is righteousness instead of (what people perceive as) intelligence.

[Lurkion]

People are monkeys, African monkeys, Old World monkeys, monkeys monkeys.

:whistle:

But I's readin in mah Bible an' it says dif'rent kinds was in the Ark, so all your fancy words are just tricks to foolin' us. I ain't never seen no Darwin risin' from the dead and dyin' for our sins!




By the way, stopped by the A+ forums to see if there's been any more hilarity in the "Are the mods capricious..." topic and I see that someone posted rocko's dramatic reading video. The admin guy banned the poster saying it was a rocko sockpuppet, is that true? Thatr would be quite amusing if it was rocko posting his vids on A+.


And finally as the Pope resigns:
http://i1322.photobucket.com/albums/u58 ... c6b936.jpg
Totally not creepy....not at all......

hahahaha I admit nothing!

[Lurkion]

In an idle moment, I added up the number of posts in the various topics at A+ and it came to 53,654 compared with the "total" posts figure of 68,184 i.e. a difference of 14,530 posts. I have no idea why the discrepancy - deleted posts? or maybe the Double Sekret Forum has just gone hog wild?

For comparison, our total posts was only 12 more than the individual topic total at 62,885.

I did say "idle" moment.

DId you mean Idle moment?

[youtube]SJUhlRoBL8M[/youtube]

[jimthepleb]

Ah Welch this one is for you. Been running through my head for days apropos of nothing.
The chorus is what I am referring to.

[jimthepleb]

oh, i'm tittier than usual.
[youtube]Uj51zLPGJOg[/youtube]

[TedDahlberg]

I've just seen on CNN that the Pope is resigning!

New job opportunity for Peezuz, perhaps?

Quitter!

Seriously though, I wonder if this will shake a few Catholics' faith… Nah, probably not.

[jimthepleb]

I've just seen on CNN that the Pope is resigning!

New job opportunity for Peezuz, perhaps?

Quitter!

Seriously though, I wonder if this will shake a few Catholics' faith… Nah, probably not.

If a catholic's faith hasn't been shattered by now, this won't do it. This and the fact I got a new job today have made it one of the happiest days in my life. Ratzinger is a particularly reprehensible human being.

[JackSkeptic]

I have wondered how much damage to the Atheist community these A+ clowns are doing. Here's an article which I have little disagreement with http://takimag.com/article/when_atheist ... t_locklin/. I took this link from the JREF forums so credit to Zooterkin there for linking it.

This is one reason I am against A+ and people like PZ, they are causing damage to our already brittle public image. They are attempting to undo all the good atheists have done over the years through tireless work just to promote their brand of political belief.

A+ isn't doing any damage, nor are FTB. To the common person, the biggest sign that Atheists are assholes are some of the stupid shit that comes out of Silverman's mouth or some of the sillier lawsuits. (YES, I GET IT, IN GOD WE TRUST IS A DICK IN YOUR EYE. LET IT GO, WE HAVE MORE IMPORTANT BATTLES TO WAGE.)

Seriously, sometimes Atheists need to take a few and see how they actually look to the outside world. They'd discover that PZ/A+ are the least of their worries.

Yes, I'm probably overstating my case. But while these people are sniping at prominent activists such as Shermer and Dawkins for no reason except to try and pull them down it risks distracting us from what really matters. If a secular conference spends all its time navel gazing then it will not be very effective. If a communicator like Dawkins has to watch every word he says his message risks dilution. This will reflect, sooner or later, on outsiders perceptions of us all and put off people who may be on the fence.

If someone phones in to a podcast and says 'Hi I'm an atheist how do I tell my family?' how will it work out if he is accused of being a misogynist as he said his mum cooks and he sees nothing wrong with that? How will it work out if someone is told that not believing in a god means you must also be a radical feminist? It's insane and if it is allowed to spread it will damage our cause.

[jjbinx007]

The best response to that feminist over-reaction to both "female" and the experiment, was Richard Dawkins, who called the article at Blaghag "hysterical twaddle".

Excellent stuff. Especially the last bit:

And why on earth should women object to being called 'female'. Especially women who blithely refer to men as 'dudes'.

Also, I learned something about a pop song from a few years back:

This was demonstrated in a famous experiment by Russell Clark and Elaine Hatfield. Male and female students were hired to go out on a campus and approach perfect strangers of the opposite sex with these words: "I've been noticing you around campus. I find you to be very attractive." There followed one of three questions, of which the most interesting was, "Would you go to bed with me tonight?"

[youtube]brPbF-cUTwE[/youtube]

[JackSkeptic]

I've just seen on CNN that the Pope is resigning!

New job opportunity for Peezuz, perhaps?

Quitter!

Seriously though, I wonder if this will shake a few Catholics' faith… Nah, probably not.

If a catholic's faith hasn't been shattered by now, this won't do it. This and the fact I got a new job today have made it one of the happiest days in my life. Ratzinger is a particularly reprehensible human being.

The few Catholics I know consider him a nasty man. His history makes the Bay Eating Bishop of Bath and Wells seem like a decent guy.

[TedDahlberg]

I've just seen on CNN that the Pope is resigning!

New job opportunity for Peezuz, perhaps?

Quitter!

Seriously though, I wonder if this will shake a few Catholics' faith… Nah, probably not.

If a catholic's faith hasn't been shattered by now, this won't do it. This and the fact I got a new job today have made it one of the happiest days in my life. Ratzinger is a particularly reprehensible human being.

I think you're probably right. And congratulations on the new job!

[Philip of Tealand]

I have yet to read about a Pope I actually can find anything even remotely redeeming to say about them - in my humble opinion they have always been reprehensible people

[welch]

I have wondered how much damage to the Atheist community these A+ clowns are doing. Here's an article which I have little disagreement with http://takimag.com/article/when_atheist ... t_locklin/. I took this link from the JREF forums so credit to Zooterkin there for linking it.

This is one reason I am against A+ and people like PZ, they are causing damage to our already brittle public image. They are attempting to undo all the good atheists have done over the years through tireless work just to promote their brand of political belief.

A+ isn't doing any damage, nor are FTB. To the common person, the biggest sign that Atheists are assholes are some of the stupid shit that comes out of Silverman's mouth or some of the sillier lawsuits. (YES, I GET IT, IN GOD WE TRUST IS A DICK IN YOUR EYE. LET IT GO, WE HAVE MORE IMPORTANT BATTLES TO WAGE.)

Seriously, sometimes Atheists need to take a few and see how they actually look to the outside world. They'd discover that PZ/A+ are the least of their worries.

Yes, I'm probably overstating my case. But while these people are sniping at prominent activists such as Shermer and Dawkins for no reason except to try and pull them down it risks distracting us from what really matters. If a secular conference spends all its time navel gazing then it will not be very effective. If a communicator like Dawkins has to watch every word he says his message risks dilution. This will reflect, sooner or later, on outsiders perceptions of us all and put off people who may be on the fence.

If someone phones in to a podcast and says 'Hi I'm an atheist how do I tell my family?' how will it work out if he is accused of being a misogynist as he said his mum cooks and he sees nothing wrong with that? How will it work out if someone is told that not believing in a god means you must also be a radical feminist? It's insane and if it is allowed to spread it will damage our cause.

All of this is answerable: Stop taking idiots and children seriously. When someone says something that sounds mind-bogglingly stupid, why assume there's some deeper meaning. If they want to be taken seriously, *they* need to prove they are not idiots, we don't need to prove we can think like idiots.

The navel-gazing issue for skeptic conferences exists outside of PeeZus et al. Really. But these assclowns are trivially dealt with: don't take them seriously. Don't take their words seriously.

[ReneeHendricks]

Jimthepleb - was your Twitter account suspended because of tweeting Jen Mc or possibly due to Oolon's dumbass block bot?

[jimthepleb]

Jimthepleb - was your Twitter account suspended because of tweeting Jen Mc or possibly due to Oolon's dumbass block bot?

I'm guessing Jen McKnobby myself, oolon's flaccid attempt at social engineering is destined for failure IMO. But I'm something of a luddite so I could well be wrong.

[CommanderTuvok]

I can't help noticing that Colon's Block Bot is not particulary popular with his intended "consumers". Only about 20 people follow it, and that includes some who are noted anti-Baboonites.

Perhaps people don't want to follow something set up by child porn loving James Billingham.

I have a funny feeling it will end badly for the Baboons, and the "Block Bot" will be an embarassing trauma we can goad Baboons with for years to come.

[welch]

You know, there's an easy way to not get blocked for @-messaging the FTB/A+/Skepchicks dorks.






don't @-message them. Really.

[ReneeHendricks]

You know, there's an easy way to not get blocked for @-messaging the FTB/A+/Skepchicks dorks.






don't @-message them. Really.

Which sounds nifty until you realize that Oolon and Aratina are going through places like here to gather up Twitter names. So, it won't matter if you've tweeted them or not.

[jimthepleb]

I can't help noticing that Colon's Block Bot is not particulary popular with his intended "consumers". Only about 20 people follow it, and that includes some who are noted anti-Baboonites.

Perhaps people don't want to follow something set up by child porn loving James Billingham.

I have a funny feeling it will end badly for the Baboons, and the "Block Bot" will be an embarassing trauma we can goad Baboons with for years to come.

James Billingham from Hampshire? how interesting, and maybe 20 miles from me... If i were any more 'egregiously moronic' I could make something of that. But then I'm not a piece of shit vindictive arsehole.
:whistle:

[Angry_Drunk]

I can't help noticing that Colon's Block Bot is not particulary popular with his intended "consumers". Only about 20 people follow it, and that includes some who are noted anti-Baboonites.

Perhaps people don't want to follow something set up by child porn loving James Billingham.

I have a funny feeling it will end badly for the Baboons, and the "Block Bot" will be an embarassing trauma we can goad Baboons with for years to come.

I feel the need to point out that my "impostor" version of slimy turd's brain-child has 1/4 (now named The_Censoring_Cyborg) of the followers as his bot, including that retard Greg Laden, who suggested TCC as a "follow Friday" candidate.

Fucktards one and all.

[CommanderTuvok]

Do any of the prime Baboons (PZ, Ophelia, Greta, Svan, etc.) follow the Block Bot?

Naturally, it would damage their claims of "victimhood" if they couldn't nosy around the web picking up on criticisms of them.

[jimthepleb]

You know, there's an easy way to not get blocked for @-messaging the FTB/A+/Skepchicks dorks.






don't @-message them. Really.

I know, I know it was a dumbarse move, (I'm known for them) but there are certain levels of smug that really do need addressing. Even if a, very small, sacrifice has to be made.

[CommanderTuvok]

TF says:

Took about the same time for PZ, doing the same thing to become the most hated atheist on Youtube. (according to google trends hes lost ~3/4 of his following since his zenith)

PZ's importance is on the wane. Good riddance.

[Angry_Drunk]

You know, there's an easy way to not get blocked for @-messaging the FTB/A+/Skepchicks dorks.






don't @-message them. Really.

Which sounds nifty until you realize that Oolon and Aratina are going through places like here to gather up Twitter names. So, it won't matter if you've tweeted them or not.

Here's the thing. Yes, a large number people blocking your account can lead to a suspension. But that is literally the highest hurdle to jump to get an account suspended, and I'd be fucking shocked if more than 30 people are using slimy's bot. Fuck, the account has only 23 followers, and a good number of them are pitters.

On the other hand, @replying to people who have asked you to stop talking to them is absolutely considered "spam" by Twitter and will get you suspended.

Seriously, when someone asks you to stop talking to them...fucking stop.

[Angry_Drunk]

Do any of the prime Baboons (PZ, Ophelia, Greta, Svan, etc.) follow the Block Bot?

Naturally, it would damage their claims of "victimhood" if they couldn't nosy around the web picking up on criticisms of them.

Laden, but well, he's Laden.

[Metalogic42]

Do any of the prime Baboons (PZ, Ophelia, Greta, Svan, etc.) follow the Block Bot?

Naturally, it would damage their claims of "victimhood" if they couldn't nosy around the web picking up on criticisms of them.

Ceepolk, Aratina, Laden, and SpokesGay follow it, but that's as far up as it goes.

[EdgePenguin]

You know, there's an easy way to not get blocked for @-messaging the FTB/A+/Skepchicks dorks.

don't @-message them. Really.

I know, I know it was a dumbarse move, (I'm known for them) but there are certain levels of smug that really do need addressing. Even if a, very small, sacrifice has to be made.

You aren't to speak to them. Don't you know who they are? How dare you address them with anything other than fawning flattery!

This is the problem with Twitter. If you have a blog, its divided into 'content' and 'comments' aka 'below the line'. Using twitter can give the impression you are acting as a blogger, and everyone who is @ing you is doing so purely as a comment on your scintillating thoughts. In reality, twitter erases the distinction between content generator and commenter (although some people try to bring this back by hammering people for having lower follower counts) so this illusion leads to irrational behavior. On twitter, we are all 'below the line' to someone else.

[CommanderTuvok]

Is it OK for them to use the @ symbol when talking about the people they have "blocked"?

[EdgePenguin]

You know, there's an easy way to not get blocked for @-messaging the FTB/A+/Skepchicks dorks.






don't @-message them. Really.

Which sounds nifty until you realize that Oolon and Aratina are going through places like here to gather up Twitter names. So, it won't matter if you've tweeted them or not.

Here's the thing. Yes, a large number people blocking your account can lead to a suspension. But that is literally the highest hurdle to jump to get an account suspended, and I'd be fucking shocked if more than 30 people are using slimy's bot. Fuck, the account has only 23 followers, and a good number of them are pitters.

On the other hand, @replying to people who have asked you to stop talking to them is absolutely considered "spam" by Twitter and will get you suspended.

Seriously, when someone asks you to stop talking to them...fucking stop.

My experience of getting suspended within minutes of revealing my @atheism_plus account indicates that it is very easy to get suspended without sending @s to anybody at all.

[jimthepleb]

You know, there's an easy way to not get blocked for @-messaging the FTB/A+/Skepchicks dorks.






don't @-message them. Really.

Which sounds nifty until you realize that Oolon and Aratina are going through places like here to gather up Twitter names. So, it won't matter if you've tweeted them or not.

Here's the thing. Yes, a large number people blocking your account can lead to a suspension. But that is literally the highest hurdle to jump to get an account suspended, and I'd be fucking shocked if more than 30 people are using slimy's bot. Fuck, the account has only 23 followers, and a good number of them are pitters.

On the other hand, @replying to people who have asked you to stop talking to them is absolutely considered "spam" by Twitter and will get you suspended.

Seriously, when someone asks you to stop talking to them...fucking stop.

No'one asked me to stop...ever
If they did, i would immediately and if i get no response I now don't msg them again. There's a bit of trial and error going on, mainly error by the looks of it.

[Angry_Drunk]

Is it OK for them to use the @ symbol when talking about the people they have "blocked"?

All they're doing when they do that is baiting you. It's like when some jackass at a bar talks about someone really loudly looking for a fight. If it bugs you, block them the fuck back.

[windy]

Sounds like a Merkin problem - what about elsewhere in the industrialized world? Here in the US, high-speed internet access in one's home or apartment really is a kind of privilege, and there are many people who simply can't afford it. What about the UK, Australia, France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Canada, Brazil, Japan, etc.?

I'm paying about $40/month for 30 Mbit/s (ADSL; theoretical max for me is probably 60) in Sweden.
...

I didn't know this before I went looking just now, I have to admit I'm a bit surprised and impressed. Anyway, basically if you can afford a device capable of connecting to the Internet, you can afford high-speed access, albeit what high-speed means depends on where you live.

Back in the ol' country I'd pay about 24€ ($32) per month for unlimited 3G access (or is it 4G now?), so the price levels are probably about the same in Finland and Sweden. Not so here at the back end of the internet tubes... to quote my fav rant about Google auto-correct:

And, just to remind you guys in those industrialised countries where bandwith flows like potable water, YOU PAY FOR EACH AND ANY WASTED MEGABYTE HERE!

So go ahead, flaunt your unlimited internet access privilege!!

[Remick]

The behavior of the mods over there reminds me of one of those cheesy prison movies.
Some librul lawyer is driving through the deep south and looks at a cop the wrong way and gets stuck in jail, whereupon he is targeted by the malevolent and troglogytic prison guards. Anything he says to remind them of the law is used as an excuse to stick him in the punishment hole for another week.

Yep! The A+holes are back! It's not really A+ without the mods' small-town-dirty-cop authoritarian personalities setting the tone:

nope

bye

Did you just permanently ban marine rachel without discussion with any other staff because you didn't like the tone of her post?

nope.

then what?

you should stop derailing this thread, mood2.

Apologies, as I've been banned from the forum matters section I'll start a thread in I and A, please respond there.

Ceepolk,

You say you didn't unilaterally ban marine rachel because she made a sarcastic post in a thread you were participating in with an opposing view point.

Please explain why you did.

because I'm tired of the continously snipey behaviour both in general about the forum and in specific towards Kassiane, and she refuses to stop doing it.

You being tired of someone's posting behaviour doesn't make that behaviour against the rules.

It means anyone who gets on your nerves is liable to get banned. That's inappropriate use of your mod privileges

Actually, mood2, someone continuously sniping at another member is against the rules because it can constitute harassment.

Not that ceepolk can't speak for herself, but what the ever-loving fuck do you actually think you know about whether her actions were unilateral? What do you think you know about what the staff has or has not discussed with regard to any other member of these forums? There's a reason you were banned from forum matters and it wasn't so you could shit up the rest of the forums peddling your "calling people out for being assholes is worse than being an asshole" garbage.

In the future, if you have a problem with a post, use the report feature. Locking this thread.

ETA: Take a week off while we figure out what to do with you.

Take a week off "while we figure out what to do with you." Classic.

piegasm's sig: "Too often we honor swagger and bluster and the wielders of force; too often we excuse those who are willing to build their own lives on the shattered dreams of others." -Robert F. Kennedy

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3923

Bloody hell, why does anyone WANT to post on that site?

Your every word subject to the scrutiny of the mods who lets face it, are complete peerless bastards

You can't type ANYTHING!

"We don't like the way you typed "yes" - you did it in a way that some would consider sexist and possibly racist - take a week off!"

"But...I agreed with you all!"

"Speaking back, BANNED!"

Did anyone look at marine rachels posting history? Doesn't seem to be a lot of sniping outside the moderators thread, or am I missing something?

Did you notice that Marine Rachel's last post, ceepolk editted to say "I'm being a dick in this thread for the last time". Mods get to use gendered slurs apparently.

[jimthepleb]

You know, there's an easy way to not get blocked for @-messaging the FTB/A+/Skepchicks dorks.






don't @-message them. Really.

Which sounds nifty until you realize that Oolon and Aratina are going through places like here to gather up Twitter names. So, it won't matter if you've tweeted them or not.

They've blocked @philosophyexp which really shows the depths they've plumbed...it's frigging hilarious