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

EdgePenguin wrote:

Angry_Drunk wrote:

ReneeHendricks wrote:

welch wrote: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.

So you created an account to parody a bunch of thin-skinned children and they acted like thin-skinned children.

Shocking.

Angry_Drunk wrote:
So you created an account to parody a bunch of thin-skinned children and they acted like thin-skinned children.

Shocking.

Yeah, I should probably have seen that one coming :)

jimthepleb wrote:

ReneeHendricks wrote:

welch wrote: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

They got a low moral consistency score and had a tantrum about it...

jimthepleb wrote:

welch wrote: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.

No, it really wasn't necessary. We all know this. But, if you want to keep getting your twitter account suspended, by all means, do not let me stop you or even slow you down.

ReneeHendricks wrote:

welch wrote: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.

Doubtful. you're giving Oolio's little project far more credit than it deserves, and if it is actually shown to be a problem, report HIM for creating a malicious bot.

I LOVE MY JOOOB!!! WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

If Jen hates it so much and feels so 'trapped', she really should just quit. Science isnt a job you should do if you dont love it. Like I said on that last podcast, we just dont make enough money for it to be the kind of job you just do for a paycheck.

EdgePenguin wrote:

Gumby wrote:

AbsurdWalls wrote:

Tigzy wrote: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.

These people are not monsters, they are fallible human beings that happen to hold a few ideas that I disagree with. I am not sure how much of (what I perceive as) their misreading of this situation is self-deception and how much is them being fed misinformation by their underlings, but I still think it is reasonable to assume they are ordinary people. When given an example of behaviour from then and asked to decide whether to interpret that within the framework of them behaving normally or behaving in a way that is very abnormal, I will assume that they are engaging in normal behaviour (in this case, they were joking).

I'm not sure what you mean by "gain[ing] forum status"... I probably wouldn't want any.

ERV wrote:I LOVE MY JOOOB!!! WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

If Jen hates it so much and feels so 'trapped', she really should just quit. Science isnt a job you should do if you dont love it. Like I said on that last podcast, we just dont make enough money for it to be the kind of job you just do for a paycheck.

I can't understand someone feeling like that either.

I am not quite a professional scientist yet (still on my PhD) but I am surrounded by them on a daily basis, and share many of the same working habits. If anyone feels that this job is a trap, they probably haven't had much experience of commercial work. I have - I started my physics undergrad degree at 26, and my PhD at 30. I'm not here for the money, and I have no illusions about the difficulty of getting a permanent position in academia - I'm here because unlike every other job I've had, I can't wait to go to work in the morning.

Most jobs are intellectually stupefying, emotionally draining, and subject to very rigid constraints on working hours, behavior, dress code, and deference to hierarchy. Compared to the private sector, academic jobs are incredibly lax on these things. I don't deny there is pressure in the job (publish or perish etc.) but you need to keep things in perspective.

Angry_Drunk wrote:

ReneeHendricks wrote:

welch wrote: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.

As I've had to actively block (and request the same from some who follow me - I'm thinking in total it's less than 20 who do this) Dawn Gordon on what seems like a daily basis, I question the number. If someone is new to Twitter and Oolon/Aratina have decided they need to be blocked, their account will be suspended in fairly short order. There are nearly 70 Twitter accounts created by Dawn Gordon where this has happened.

It's a slimy piece of work, period.

BTW, you don't need to be following the actual Twitter account "the_block_bot" for this to work. You can sign up via Oolon's site and have it block for you (tested with my work account).

welch wrote:

Jack wrote:

welch wrote:

Jack wrote: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.

Which is why I like the humour on this site when directed towards them. Unfortunately too many people seem to be taking them seriously and do not take them as idiots. So attacking them with sound arguments is also important I think. Most importantly, it's also fun. I have always enjoyed discussions with theists and believers in anything woo and to me this is the same. Their whole strategy is identical to the more extreme believers in nonsense.

I have yet to see one of their arguments stand up to scrutiny. I have read PZ's statements and I have read lots of their blogs. They all boil down to appeals to emotion ('radical notion that women are equals') or meaningless sophistry (all men can rape therefore all men are rape enablers) Their god is the god of emotion. That is not a pathway to any sort of truth.

welch wrote:

ReneeHendricks wrote:

welch wrote: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.

Doubtful. you're giving Oolio's little project far more credit than it deserves, and if it is actually shown to be a problem, report HIM for creating a malicious bot.

That's exactly what a few of us are doing. I won't see a suspension out of this - I've been on Twitter for nearly 5 years, have a good following/follower ratio, and don't spam. But I hate seeing new people who don't even do anything wrong getting suspended just because 2 fucking asshats on the 'net think they're all that and a fucking bag of chips.

I'm curious as to what Herr Ratzinger's resignation does viz his potential claims of sovereign immunity (a defense that has already singularly failed Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosovic and was in the process of failing Augusto Pinochet when the grim reaper jumped the line).

I'm sure the papal consigliere has considered this, but it would warm my heart to think that Ratzinger's travel plans for his retirement are severely restricted.

ReneeHendricks wrote:BTW, you don't need to be following the actual Twitter account "the_block_bot" for this to work. You can sign up via Oolon's site and have it block for you (tested with my work account).

I'm aware of that, and I think you're crediting the A+ derps with far more influence than they actually have. I'd be shocked if more than 50 people use oolon's bot ever.

EdgePenguin wrote:

ERV wrote:I LOVE MY JOOOB!!! WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

If Jen hates it so much and feels so 'trapped', she really should just quit. Science isnt a job you should do if you dont love it. Like I said on that last podcast, we just dont make enough money for it to be the kind of job you just do for a paycheck.

I can't understand someone feeling like that either.

I am not quite a professional scientist yet (still on my PhD) but I am surrounded by them on a daily basis, and share many of the same working habits. If anyone feels that this job is a trap, they probably haven't had much experience of commercial work. I have - I started my physics undergrad degree at 26, and my PhD at 30. I'm not here for the money, and I have no illusions about the difficulty of getting a permanent position in academia - I'm here because unlike every other job I've had, I can't wait to go to work in the morning.

Most jobs are intellectually stupefying, emotionally draining, and subject to very rigid constraints on working hours, behavior, dress code, and deference to hierarchy. Compared to the private sector, academic jobs are incredibly lax on these things. I don't deny there is pressure in the job (publish or perish etc.) but you need to keep things in perspective.

I farm, and absolutely passionately love my job and my animals. I took a 2/3 cut in my income to pursue my dream and after 5 years working from the very bottom up it has finally paid off and in the next few weeks i go from managing the night milking team to a lowly position in the main herd. I spend every day exhausted, covered in shit and piss and far too much time shoulder deep in cow's arse. They will carry me off site in a box and I wouldn't want it any other way. It's a fabulous life. I couldn't imagine waking up dreading my day now, even at 4.30am.

Hey all - you know that pic of the robot gangsters from Futurama that was posted not too long ago? Someone said I was the "leader" robot. Did we point out who the other 2 were? Having a convo about this (who's the leader of non-FTB/A+/Skepchick group - Abbie was mentioned).

CommanderTuvok wrote: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.

Well, Oolon seems to be under the impression these people do not want to be 'victimised'.

I hope you realize that Oolon orgasms every time we post anything about his stupid bot.

So that's on us.

SPACKlick wrote:You say edited the shit out of, I can't see any comments at all on there.

I should have said, she edited the shit out of her article (shit meaning the same as 'edited the fuck out of..." rather than the shitty stuff), and she totally flushed all her comments down the drain.

Angry_Drunk wrote:I hope you realize that Oolon orgasms every time we post anything about his stupid bot.

So that's on us.

So THAT'S why my eye is burning...

ERV wrote:I LOVE MY JOOOB!!! WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

If Jen hates it so much and feels so 'trapped', she really should just quit. Science isnt a job you should do if you dont love it. Like I said on that last podcast, we just dont make enough money for it to be the kind of job you just do for a paycheck.

Yep. I got me a PhD in quantum chemistry, and after seven years doing research I decided that science wasn't for me. I now manage a tech team involved in various aspects of persistent storage automation, and data migration, plus I interact with security, legal, compliance, hardware and a bunch of other departments. I love the variety and the quick-moving nature of it, plus I get paid way more than I would as a scientician.

Consequently, I no longer have a long face.

Fuck "job satisfaction". My sense of fulfillment comes from converting my paycheck to sweet, sweet ethanol.

Why do I get the feeling that the A+ forum doesn't have so many people celebrating their life choices?

Gefan wrote:I'm curious as to what Herr Ratzinger's resignation does viz his potential claims of sovereign immunity (a defense that has already singularly failed Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosovic and was in the process of failing Augusto Pinochet when the grim reaper jumped the line).

I'm sure the papal consigliere has considered this, but it would warm my heart to think that Ratzinger's travel plans for his retirement are severely restricted.

Nobody is going to arrest and prosecute a saintly old man who is on his death bed (I don't believe this saintly shit, of course, but I do believe he is probably very ill indeed, if only from stress), which is how he'll be painted in the press. He's not going to have his collar felt no matter where he travels.

ReneeHendricks wrote:Hey all - you know that pic of the robot gangsters from Futurama that was posted not too long ago? Someone said I was the "leader" robot. Did we point out who the other 2 were? Having a convo about this (who's the leader of non-FTB/A+/Skepchick group - Abbie was mentioned).

Don't make me use the clamps!!!

EdgePenguin wrote:Why do I get the feeling that the A+ forum doesn't have so many people celebrating their life choices?

Victims never make choices, least of all, any you could ever blame them for.

Lsuoma wrote:

Gefan wrote:I'm curious as to what Herr Ratzinger's resignation does viz his potential claims of sovereign immunity (a defense that has already singularly failed Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosovic and was in the process of failing Augusto Pinochet when the grim reaper jumped the line).

I'm sure the papal consigliere has considered this, but it would warm my heart to think that Ratzinger's travel plans for his retirement are severely restricted.

Nobody is going to arrest and prosecute a saintly old man who is on his death bed (I don't believe this saintly shit, of course, but I do believe he is probably very ill indeed, if only from stress), which is how he'll be painted in the press. He's not going to have his collar felt no matter where he travels.

Rats off a sinking ship. The evil old bastard can rot after he oversaw the organisation of the child abuse cover-up. Now we will get a black or South American pope as the church finally disintegrates into the unholy mess it has always been beneath the surface. Then they can be all lovely and racist and say 'see we told you only whitey's can run the church.'
An organisation of evil cunts. I am understating my loathing.
Hopefully the old fucker dies soon 'cos if you think he won't continue to pull strings from behind the scenes you're sorely mistaken. He was always happier as the power behind the throne as he was with JP2. :violin:

ROFLMAO!!!!!! Ok, it seems Ophie got caught in a lie regarding the use of the word "bitch" on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/AmbrosiaX/status/300827616078868481

@AmbrosiaX
Maybe I did misinterpret what @opheliabenson meant when she wrote "stupidbitch." Should I admit that or stand my ground because of my ego?

@OpheliaBenson
@benfromcanada @AmbrosiaX wtf? I didn't write that. I don't use that word. There are at least 2 fake Twitter accts that use my real name.

@Trinoc_
@OpheliaBenson @benfromcanada @AmbrosiaX Sorry, Ophelia, but you did: …

(status from above):

@OpheliaBenson
@aratina Did which? (And I don't know who GWW is! #stupidbitch #nowondersheisonAVFM)

I have tears in my eyes from the laughter :D

Lsuoma wrote:

ReneeHendricks wrote:Hey all - you know that pic of the robot gangsters from Futurama that was posted not too long ago? Someone said I was the "leader" robot. Did we point out who the other 2 were? Having a convo about this (who's the leader of non-FTB/A+/Skepchick group - Abbie was mentioned).

Don't make me use the clamps!!!

Whatever Francis.

At FTB, Jason T. has a post linking to another post about the differences between gender and equity feminists. One of the things the blogger talks about (other than how fucking evil evo psych is) is that feminism is trying to remove gender roles (specifically in the STEM fields). What they neglect to say is that they are fine with gender roles in the low status/high danger occupations (construction, coal mining, oil derrick work etc.) but the high status/low danger jobs (STEM) well, those gender roles are just patriarchically imposed.

You feminists really want to get rid of gender roles? Start telling women to go into construction jobs, logging, commercial fishing, refuse collection, truck driving, and electrical power line repair.

Angry_Drunk wrote:

CommanderTuvok wrote: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.

:lol: :lol: :lol: colour that one my laugh for the day - Jesus, Laden really is the gift that just keeps on giving. I can't help but be reminded of my most recent tribute to him: a testosterone-poisoned female whose utter malevolence combined with unparallelled ineptitude actually does make me wonder if he was grown by aliens as a comedy character for a Sol-System based humourous reality TV show.

I have no hope of catching up on the latest goings on do I?

Tony Parsehole wrote:I have no hope of catching up on the latest goings on do I?

No.

Tony Parsehole wrote:I have no hope of catching up on the latest goings on do I?

We're all silly cunts.

There, done.

Jack wrote:

EdgePenguin wrote:

Gumby wrote:

AbsurdWalls wrote:

Tigzy wrote: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.

Jack covers it quite nicely here, with the most relevant bit highlighted by me.

welch wrote:

Tony Parsehole wrote:I have no hope of catching up on the latest goings on do I?

We're all silly cunts.

There, done.

'cept cunt, who's a dick.

welch wrote:

Tony Parsehole wrote:I have no hope of catching up on the latest goings on do I?

We're all silly cunts.

There, done.

I'm offended by such vile calumny! I, good sir, am a frivolous twat.

jimthepleb wrote:...Hopefully the old fucker dies soon 'cos if you think he won't continue to pull strings from behind the scenes you're sorely mistaken. He was always happier as the power behind the throne as he was with JP2. :violin:

He'll have power of veto over his successor. His previous gig means he has all the good stuff on any and all potential successors. Andrew Sullivan (whose keyboard is likely smoking right now) aptly described Ratzinger as; "the J. Edgar Hoover of the Catholic Church".

I'd qualify the comparison by noting that Hoover only ever wore a dress in private.

Angry_Drunk wrote:

welch wrote:

Tony Parsehole wrote:I have no hope of catching up on the latest goings on do I?

We're all silly cunts.

There, done.

I'm offended by such vile calumny! I, good sir, am a frivolous twat.

Fie on your frivolity sirrah! There shall be none of that herein, only good, old-fashioned proper silliness!

jimthepleb wrote:

EdgePenguin wrote:

ERV wrote:I LOVE MY JOOOB!!! WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

If Jen hates it so much and feels so 'trapped', she really should just quit. Science isnt a job you should do if you dont love it. Like I said on that last podcast, we just dont make enough money for it to be the kind of job you just do for a paycheck.

I can't understand someone feeling like that either.

I am not quite a professional scientist yet (still on my PhD) but I am surrounded by them on a daily basis, and share many of the same working habits. If anyone feels that this job is a trap, they probably haven't had much experience of commercial work. I have - I started my physics undergrad degree at 26, and my PhD at 30. I'm not here for the money, and I have no illusions about the difficulty of getting a permanent position in academia - I'm here because unlike every other job I've had, I can't wait to go to work in the morning.

Most jobs are intellectually stupefying, emotionally draining, and subject to very rigid constraints on working hours, behavior, dress code, and deference to hierarchy. Compared to the private sector, academic jobs are incredibly lax on these things. I don't deny there is pressure in the job (publish or perish etc.) but you need to keep things in perspective.

I farm, and absolutely passionately love my job and my animals. I took a 2/3 cut in my income to pursue my dream and after 5 years working from the very bottom up it has finally paid off and in the next few weeks i go from managing the night milking team to a lowly position in the main herd. I spend every day exhausted, covered in shit and piss and far too much time shoulder deep in cow's arse. They will carry me off site in a box and I wouldn't want it any other way. It's a fabulous life. I couldn't imagine waking up dreading my day now, even at 4.30am.

You've been farming for five years? You should've made a small fortune by now.

Of course that's assuming you started with a large one. :lol:

TheMudbrooker wrote:

jimthepleb wrote:

EdgePenguin wrote:

ERV wrote:I LOVE MY JOOOB!!! WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

If Jen hates it so much and feels so 'trapped', she really should just quit. Science isnt a job you should do if you dont love it. Like I said on that last podcast, we just dont make enough money for it to be the kind of job you just do for a paycheck.

I can't understand someone feeling like that either.

I am not quite a professional scientist yet (still on my PhD) but I am surrounded by them on a daily basis, and share many of the same working habits. If anyone feels that this job is a trap, they probably haven't had much experience of commercial work. I have - I started my physics undergrad degree at 26, and my PhD at 30. I'm not here for the money, and I have no illusions about the difficulty of getting a permanent position in academia - I'm here because unlike every other job I've had, I can't wait to go to work in the morning.

Most jobs are intellectually stupefying, emotionally draining, and subject to very rigid constraints on working hours, behavior, dress code, and deference to hierarchy. Compared to the private sector, academic jobs are incredibly lax on these things. I don't deny there is pressure in the job (publish or perish etc.) but you need to keep things in perspective.

I farm, and absolutely passionately love my job and my animals. I took a 2/3 cut in my income to pursue my dream and after 5 years working from the very bottom up it has finally paid off and in the next few weeks i go from managing the night milking team to a lowly position in the main herd. I spend every day exhausted, covered in shit and piss and far too much time shoulder deep in cow's arse. They will carry me off site in a box and I wouldn't want it any other way. It's a fabulous life. I couldn't imagine waking up dreading my day now, even at 4.30am.

You've been farming for five years? You should've made a small fortune by now.

Of course that's assuming you started with a large one. :lol:

Ha! no chance, I'm working for The Man atm, only a fool would have bought a dairy herd in the last 10 years or so with production costs above sales costs. It's only the very rich and the aristocracy who dairy now in Britain...although things may change in the near future in which case i'll look again.
Beef is a different story if you don't mind the horse-trading. :rimshot:

Philip of Tealand wrote: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

It'll be a case of meet the new cunt, same as the old cunt.

jimthepleb wrote: Ha! no chance, I'm working for The Man atm, only a fool would have bought a dairy herd in the last 10 years or so with production costs above sales costs. It's only the very rich and the aristocracy who dairy now in Britain...although things may change in the near future in which case i'll look again.
Beef is a different story if you don't mind the horse-trading. :rimshot:

Now you've just got me thinking of this:

Apples wrote:

incognito wrote:

Michael K Gray wrote:

jjbinx007 wrote: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?

Nope, it's histrionic. You can search for the word on the right to see it in context and everything.

PZ worked up in a lather about the zombie torso - wonder what he would say about these porcelain figures by Jessica Harrison?

http://www.jessicaharrison.co.uk/page7.htm

http://www.jessicaharrison.co.uk/USERIM ... und(2).jpg

Cunning Punt wrote:

Philip of Tealand wrote: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

It'll be a case of meet the new cunt, same as the old cunt.

Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but this is apparently the first papal resignation in 600 years. I am not sure I am buying the "health reasons" excuse. There may be a serious scandal soon to emerge.

Tigzy wrote: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.

Hey, bitches! I'm back! :D

I'm confused about what was that the woman with tons of makeup was joking about...does she really doesn't go on trips because of her husband? "I don't do that" WHAT!?
He checks her Twitter feed, he confronts people that @ her, does not leave home without him...no wonder she's such a staunch feminist. She's a prisoner of THE PATRIARCHY!

ERV wrote:I LOVE MY JOOOB!!! WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

If Jen hates it so much and feels so 'trapped', she really should just quit. Science isnt a job you should do if you dont love it. Like I said on that last podcast, we just dont make enough money for it to be the kind of job you just do for a paycheck.

As I recall, you still have a bit of ways to go before you get that ring to Mount Doom :P

incognito wrote:

Apples wrote:

incognito wrote:

Michael K Gray wrote:

jjbinx007 wrote: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?

Nope, it's histrionic. You can search for the word on the right to see it in context and everything.

I'm confused - your link takes us to a passage in the book On the Pathology and Treatment of Hysteria. The passage highlighted in your link appears to be discussing hysteria, and a search for histrionic in that book only shows one result, on page 8, discussing "professors of the histrionic art" (apparently referring to theatre).

Over at that Takimag (http://takimag.com/article/when_atheist ... z2KcJa7tSQ) (and yes, Taki himself is a piece of shit), Mallorie Nasrallah has an apropos comment:

These people (A+) are weirdo, judgmental dicks for sure, but as is typical with all in-fighting, there is no need to judge all of us based on those who are simply the loudest and most annoying.
Some of us just limit ourselves to things like "hey lets not teach creationism and its ilk as science, that seems like a bad idea." etc.

Plus, PZ is the father of all this A+ crap because of his blog network anyway. We are way more diverse than you seem to know.

Sorry you've had such a shit experience. Squeaky wheel syndrome with these folks.

Apples wrote:

incognito wrote:
Nope, it's histrionic. You can search for the word on the right to see it in context and everything.

I'm confused - your link takes us to a passage in the book On the Pathology and Treatment of Hysteria. The passage highlighted in your link appears to be discussing hysteria, and a search for histrionic in that book only shows one result, on page 8, discussing "professors of the histrionic art" (apparently referring to theatre).

You're right, and my apologies. I totally just flat-out misread that. :oops:

incognito wrote:

Apples wrote:

incognito wrote:
Nope, it's histrionic. You can search for the word on the right to see it in context and everything.

I'm confused - your link takes us to a passage in the book On the Pathology and Treatment of Hysteria. The passage highlighted in your link appears to be discussing hysteria, and a search for histrionic in that book only shows one result, on page 8, discussing "professors of the histrionic art" (apparently referring to theatre).

You're right, and my apologies. I totally just flat-out misread that. :oops:

No worries. :)

codelette wrote:

Tigzy wrote: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.

Hey, bitches! I'm back! :D

I'm confused about what was that the woman with tons of makeup was joking about...does she really doesn't go on trips because of her husband? "I don't do that" WHAT!?
He checks her Twitter feed, he confronts people that @ her, does not leave home without him...no wonder she's such a staunch feminist. She's a prisoner of THE PATRIARCHY!

What I noticed about this whole episode is that she's claiming to be involved with a CFI sorta in-joke. And she's doing it via her twitter account. Her personal twitter account. The personal twitter account that she went to great lengths not that long ago to tell everyone was only used for personal stuff, not CFI stuff.

Again, not really a biggie. It's not like any of us actually believed that she was going to keep her personal life separate from her CFI duties.

I like HuffPo's lead story header, "The Holy See Ya Later".

Git wrote:Over at that Takimag (http://takimag.com/article/when_atheist ... z2KcJa7tSQ) (and yes, Taki himself is a piece of shit), Mallorie Nasrallah has an apropos comment:

These people (A+) are weirdo, judgmental dicks for sure, but as is typical with all in-fighting, there is no need to judge all of us based on those who are simply the loudest and most annoying.
Some of us just limit ourselves to things like "hey lets not teach creationism and its ilk as science, that seems like a bad idea." etc.

Plus, PZ is the father of all this A+ crap because of his blog network anyway. We are way more diverse than you seem to know.

Sorry you've had such a shit experience. Squeaky wheel syndrome with these folks.

yup taki is a class A dick...worth a look though. HOLY SHIT THAT COMMENT SECTION!! lolololol

jimthepleb wrote:

Git wrote:Over at that Takimag (http://takimag.com/article/when_atheist ... z2KcJa7tSQ) (and yes, Taki himself is a piece of shit), Mallorie Nasrallah has an apropos comment:

These people (A+) are weirdo, judgmental dicks for sure, but as is typical with all in-fighting, there is no need to judge all of us based on those who are simply the loudest and most annoying.
Some of us just limit ourselves to things like "hey lets not teach creationism and its ilk as science, that seems like a bad idea." etc.

Plus, PZ is the father of all this A+ crap because of his blog network anyway. We are way more diverse than you seem to know.

Sorry you've had such a shit experience. Squeaky wheel syndrome with these folks.

yup taki is a class A dick...worth a look though. HOLY SHIT THAT COMMENT SECTION!! lolololol

Yeh it's 90% strawmen arguments. People seem to be wilfully ignorant about atheism yet are happy for it to upset them. Strange way of thinking.

In the US, since rather a lot of atheists tenn to be either "far left" (European equivalent of a "Social Democrat") or "far right" (objectivist/libertarian leaning) I guess it makes sense that half of the atheists/irreligious find rather a lot of other atheists/irreligious annoying?

incognito wrote:In the US, since rather a lot of atheists tenn to be either "far left" (European equivalent of a "Social Democrat") or "far right" (objectivist/libertarian leaning) I guess it makes sense that half of the atheists/irreligious find rather a lot of other atheists/irreligious annoying?

Yes there's a heavily political element in the US, also from the 'Commie=Atheist=Evil' narrative.

This is true in the UK except not so apparent. Our right wing party in government is pushing through gay marriage laws for instance and abortion is rarely debated. If it is it is how many weeks to do it.

In the UK atheists would never attempt to align atheism to a social philosophy, there would be an outcry. Politicising these things is ALWAYS a bad idea. As an outsider it seems to be common and accepted (similar to global warming which is so heavily politicised it is hard to get real facts)

Submariner wrote:At FTB, Jason T. has a post linking to another post about the differences between gender and equity feminists. One of the things the blogger talks about (other than how fucking evil evo psych is) is that feminism is trying to remove gender roles (specifically in the STEM fields). What they neglect to say is that they are fine with gender roles in the low status/high danger occupations (construction, coal mining, oil derrick work etc.) but the high status/low danger jobs (STEM) well, those gender roles are just patriarchically imposed.

You feminists really want to get rid of gender roles? Start telling women to go into construction jobs, logging, commercial fishing, refuse collection, truck driving, and electrical power line repair.

Hi Submariner - don't think we have chatted :)

Quick question.

I'm wondering whether you consider on the streets law enforcement to be low status/high danger? I ask because women have been joining that for a while now, and they have been getting shot at.

Of course, you might argue that this is actually high danger/high status making it a special case, but then you still have the low status/high danger similar job of female prison guard. Do you think it possible that these jobs should be included in your analysis? If not, why not?

Cheers.

PZ praises William Shatner's statements against free speech. Figures. What a dumbfuck!

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ee-speech/
http://www.freezepage.com/1360612689NSMBSHRVCC