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

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:

Michael K Gray wrote:Did you know that a survey showed that 34% of blokes say that:
they like their smart-phone as much as they like sex?
For me, they are similar.
About 5 inches long, and have seen more than their share of Angry Birds.

5 inches? poor you...

But it never goes soft.

Dick Strawkins wrote:

UnbelieveSteve wrote:Here's a version of ool0n's blocklist without the rest of the bullshit on his page.
No registering necessary. http://x2t.com/blocklist

There's nearly two hundred twitter accounts there!
Are those two nitwits still trying to convince people that their objective is to block only those accounts persistantly making unwanted tweets at FTBers?
Bollocks.

:lol: I didn't make any tweets at any FTBers at all.

Jonathan wrote:Once again the A+ers are pushing the line that racism isn't racism if the person or people don't have institutional power behind them.

Just where the hell does this "definition" come from? Checked four or five different dictionaries and none of them deem racism to require institutional power; just discrimination based on race.

Yeah. I went to Africa and called everyone the "n" word. I was like "What? You got the institutional power here, so what I'm saying is not a problem bitches!"

Dick Strawkins wrote:

UnbelieveSteve wrote:Here's a version of ool0n's blocklist without the rest of the bullshit on his page.
No registering necessary. http://x2t.com/blocklist

There's nearly two hundred twitter accounts there!
Are those two nitwits still trying to convince people that their objective is to block only those accounts persistantly making unwanted tweets at FTBers?
Bollocks.

lol thunderf00t is on there.

Tigzy wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:

UnbelieveSteve wrote:Here's a version of ool0n's blocklist without the rest of the bullshit on his page.
No registering necessary. http://x2t.com/blocklist

There's nearly two hundred twitter accounts there!
Are those two nitwits still trying to convince people that their objective is to block only those accounts persistantly making unwanted tweets at FTBers?
Bollocks.

:lol: I didn't make any tweets at any FTBers at all.

Some funny accounts too. "Oolonblowscocks"
LOL!

Good to see I'm not on there. Oolon couldn't find me if I gave him directions the stupid twat.

UnbelieveSteve wrote:Here's a version of ool0n's blocklist without the rest of the bullshit on his page.
No registering necessary. http://x2t.com/blocklist

Funny, I'm blocked and didn't know it.

I removed all the FTB/Skepchick/A+ dicks from my Following list last year.

IS ANYONE UP FOR A SLYMEPIT TAM PARTY?

Could be awesome! Working on convincing the Mrs to let me come stateside!

Meanwhile, I am in the process of doing two dramatic readings. One is about PZ's book! It's terrible. I'm not sure whether I'll post it.

Well, it's more of a 'song' than a 'reading'.

Jonathan wrote:Once again the A+ers are pushing the line that racism isn't racism if the person or people don't have institutional power behind them.

Just where the hell does this "definition" come from? Checked four or five different dictionaries and none of them deem racism to require institutional power; just discrimination based on race.

It came from the Magical Land Of Madeupwank where the trees are made of chocolate and facts are whatever your dreams want them to be.

I don't know if this has been linked before, but I came across a fascinating analysis on what causes "vicious attacks" against certain skeptical women. It is “rage against the enlightenment”:

The Enlightenment overthrew the previous order. It replaced theocracies and monarchies with democracies, and replaced revelations with evidence-based reasoning. But it also set in motion the trend towards acceptance of all sorts of people and behaviours that were once suppressed. It even led to women (women!) being able to speak their minds, and even criticise patriarchal attitudes!

The “dimension of enlightenment” that appears to be the sticking point is “Empathy”. This involves seeing others as ends in their own right, not as means to ends, and naturally or deliberately examining things from their point of view (although not necessarily agreeing with them afterwards):

Summary: Attitudes and views towards other beings, human or otherwise.
Enlightened views: Peers. Equality. LGBT-acceptance. Pluralism. Meeting of minds. Sympathy. Compassion. Autonomy. Great apes.
Unenlightened views: In-group only. Belief in sub-humans. Patriarchy. Intolerance. Slavery. Property. Racism. LGBT-intolerance. Misogyny. Misandry.

*The more you know...!*

acathode wrote:On Harriet Halls blogpost:

A wild Rebecca Watson appears!
She uses vapid snark!
It's super ineffective!

I'm just wondering what the point of Watson's comment was. Hall's post wasn't about her, the things Watson writes in her comment is almost completely OT, and the thinly veiled insult and snark makes Watson seem like a juvenile, bickering dramaqueen, which is not lost on most of the commenters, as they apparently left high school decades ago (both physically and mentally).

Just what was going through Watson's head when she wrote that drivel? There were nothing in the post aimed at Watson that required her to defend herself, so why show up like that and make an utter fool out of herself?

Well the "SpokesGay" found it "calm," and "lucid", and by his own drama junkie, shrieking gay stereotype standards, I suppose it is. And honestly I think that Josh and his kindred were all Rebecca wanted to impress. Karla hit the nail on the head when she described them as a toxic mutual admiration society.

@CommanderTuvok

Nice takedown of Beckyboos there - I particularly like the way you condescended to her, as though telling-off a stroppy child. Very apt.

You know, I can see Becky going the way of Toby Young, circa 1980s: hip, happenin new young dude on the block, gets trendy, capitalises on it by getting a job with a top New York publication - but is such a vapid dick that his career soon plummets to the point that he is reduced to testing sex toys on himself for review in a men's magazine.

Tony Young's saving grace was that he was at least aware of what a massive dick he was, and soon found himself back on his feet with the publication of How to Lose Friends and Alienate People.

I don't see the glob having any such self-awareness.

Jonathan wrote:Once again the A+ers are pushing the line that racism isn't racism if the person or people don't have institutional power behind them.

Just where the hell does this "definition" come from? Checked four or five different dictionaries and none of them deem racism to require institutional power; just discrimination based on race.

It comes from more advanced forms of SJW-ism realizing that accusations of sexism/racism are actually a VERY weak spot against them as they often say absurdly sexist/racist shit, as when your entire ideology revolves around putting people into little boxes and matching them against lists of check boxes is apt to happen.

A+ is a very underdeveloped form of SJW-ism, more or less, as the various memes haven't really made it's way into the community yet. Truth be told, the bigger problem is the ignorance about the issue outside of their little sphere, which isn't really all that surprising as it's a movement based around self-entitlement anyway.

I think Harriet Hall really touched on the difference here, that it's between people who think that all people should be judged/looked at based upon their achievements and character, and the opposing view (which I think, to be honest, I'm being quite charitable here), in that this is pretty much impossible and as such we NEED to take various factors of identity into direct account in order to correct for these imbalances, systematic or otherwise.

The problem is that focusing on those factors of identity...even in a positive fashion..normalizes an increased focus on those factors of identity. It undoes a lot of the work, I think in terms of unnormalizing, so to speak, sexist and racist communications.

Shorter Pharyngula Lounge:

Hugs and chocolate! ...
Hugs if you want them. ...
*Trigger warning* ...
Anklehugs ...
*shaking and crying* ...
Stop bullying me in the lounge! ...
*****hugs***** (and chocolate) ....
pouncehug!

"I love the horde. I’m so used to being told I’m just being overly sensitive, or stupid or I just need to get over it and being understood like this is something that never happens to me. So thanks, I’m sitting here shaking and crying but thanks for being so understanding." (actual comment)

"you’re right to remind us to put trigger warnings, which I also have forgotten to do while in the throes of being affected by what I’m writing (or responding to). IMHO we should be working to make trigger warnings a habitual part of etiquette, like addressing others by name so they can find relevant posts. I’ll also try to be more careful. Thanks for bringing it up." (another actual comment)

http://www.stakeholdergroup.com/wp-cont ... up-hug.jpg

Gumby wrote:http://rlv.zcache.com/hot_tea_sucks_mug ... 9p_400.jpg

Indeed. If you must drink tea, the only way to go is Sweet Tea.

Note for the silly. "Sweetened" tea is NOT the same as Sweet Tea.

welch wrote: Indeed. If you must drink tea, the only way to go is Sweet Tea.

Note for the silly. "Sweetened" tea is NOT the same as Sweet Tea.

Filthy Southerner.

Tigzy wrote:Ah - seems I've been following other users too aggressively. Well, that is about 80 in three days, so...don't go blaming Ooley just yet!

yeah. Now that twitter has to convince people it can be profitable, it actually has to do so, and so they're being tits about a lot of things.

It is illuminating that Queen Bee has tweeted that she won't be going back to Hall's thread because of the "bullies". Can anyone tell me a comment on there that comes anywhere near to matching the vitriol and abuse you find at Pharyngula?

acathode wrote:On Harriet Halls blogpost:

A wild Rebecca Watson appears!
She uses vapid snark!
It's super ineffective!

I'm just wondering what the point of Watson's comment was. Hall's post wasn't about her, the things Watson writes in her comment is almost completely OT, and the thinly veiled insult and snark makes Watson seem like a juvenile, bickering dramaqueen, which is not lost on most of the commenters, as they apparently left high school decades ago (both physically and mentally).

Just what was going through Watson's head when she wrote that drivel? There were nothing in the post aimed at Watson that required her to defend herself, so why show up like that and make an utter fool out of herself?

She's a New Media Douchebag. One of her Google Search agents, the ones looking for "skepchicks" and all variants returned a hit, and so she capitalized on that.

Will now has another post up about harriet hall, and we can probably expect more from the other skepchicks on this. In doing so, complete with plenty of links to various other articles, (unlike the FTB idiots, Rebecca does know how Google works), Will's article is now one of the first results for "harriet hall gender" in Google.

What was going through her head? The same thing that is *always* going through her head: "How can I make this benefit me?"

Dick Strawkins wrote:

UnbelieveSteve wrote:Here's a version of ool0n's blocklist without the rest of the bullshit on his page.
No registering necessary. http://x2t.com/blocklist

There's nearly two hundred twitter accounts there!
Are those two nitwits still trying to convince people that their objective is to block only those accounts persistantly making unwanted tweets at FTBers?
Bollocks.

The purpose of that list is to give Oolio the one thing he cannot live without: attention.

Thus far, it is working perfectly.

Angry_Drunk wrote:

welch wrote: Indeed. If you must drink tea, the only way to go is Sweet Tea.

Note for the silly. "Sweetened" tea is NOT the same as Sweet Tea.

Filthy Southerner.

At least there is naturally occurring water where I live :-P

it's all full of cholera and crazy, but it's there.

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:I must admit, when visiting the Oxford Natural History Museum a few years ago, I was on the lookout for a wild Dawkins. I'm a fanboy!

I'd like to think I wouldn't act all groupie/fan-like around him, but even at my age I couldn't be certain. Did you know that on top of his wonderful writing, he also has the very best voice to autotune? Listen to the following song which has a lot of scientists being autotuned (and also unfortunately one crappy scientist who sucks at stats [TRIGGER WARNING at at the 2:30 point]). Dawkins' voice puts the others to shame.

[youtube]9Cd36WJ79z4[/youtube]

Now, I dare anyone to tell me that Dawkins was not the most pleasant sounding voice in that mix. Keep in mind that you will be my enemy for life.

Oh just kidding. Not enemies, but I might have taken you off of my xmas card list, if I'd have had one. :P

Someone on twitter mentioned the following story the other day - it's about a Georgia politician, Earnest Smith, who got hopping mad when someone photoshopped him (badly, onto a porn picture)

Well now he wants to make it illegal.
According to Smith:

"No one has a right to make fun of anyone. It’s not a First Amendment right,"

You mean: "FREEZE PEACH"?

The local newspaper doesn't quite have the same Ophelia-like disregard of the constitution.

http://www.southfloridagaynews.com/news ... pping.html

Smith’s own hometown paper, the Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle, in a blistering editorial, "It’s hard to believe, even in a state that gave rise to U.S. Rep. Hank Johnson -- who once worried the island of Guam might tip over -- that an American citizen would be so ignorant of our rights. It’s mind-boggling to think that people who help write our laws are that out to lunch.

"Must we? Really? Must we refute the representative’s asinine assertion?" the editorial continued. "Americans have a fundamental right to mock others. It’s an integral part of free speech; ridicule and satire simply cannot be boiled out and separated from free speech. It’s impossible."

But perhaps the last word on Smith came from an anonymous lawmaker, who told Fox News, "He’s the conductor of his own crazy train."

I think I'll steal that last line for Ophie.

She's the conductor of her own crazy train.

http://i.imgur.com/BfwQ6Np.jpg

Michael K Gray wrote:

Philip of Tealand wrote:

Michael K Gray wrote:

decius wrote:MKG, you're no true Aussie, are you? For I know that all distinguished Antipodeans hold this char-guzzling wanker in great contempt.

To whom do you refer as a "this char[sic]-guzzling wanker"?
Elucidate, please.

Michael, ignore him, he's got "coffee issues"

So have I!
Coffee gives me crippling migraines.
I cannot even stand the smell of it, such is the correlation between coffee and seemingly interminable searing knife-stabbing pain.
If a friend(!) should request that I meet them at a trendy café, I tell them to fuck off, as even smelling one of them there steam-thingies wot extract the essence from the foul beans is enough to make me puke.
Pub, park, library, dungeon? Yes.
Café? No way.

Here I am, an outcast, who's only non-ethanol-laced drink is the finest fermented then brewed Tea that nature can offer!

Uh huh... I think you are protesting against coffee a little too much. Admit it. You are Elevator Guy!

masakari2012 wrote:Well, if it really is you, then I take back every bad thing I said about you while you weren't paying attention. Also, I don't care what Submariner says about you behind your back, you're an intelligent guy!

;)

Submariner, Steersman? Is it sea-going people who are always the twats?

:lol:

welch wrote:

Angry_Drunk wrote:

welch wrote: Indeed. If you must drink tea, the only way to go is Sweet Tea.

Note for the silly. "Sweetened" tea is NOT the same as Sweet Tea.

Filthy Southerner.

At least there is naturally occurring water where I live :-P

it's all full of cholera and crazy, but it's there.

We have plenty of water. The problem is that we have too many assholes.

Say, do you folks like coffee?

[youtube]VFURd_EOIuU[/youtube]

Somebody please remind me about Rebecca's contributions to skeptical areas...

Scented Nectar wrote: Uh huh... I think you are protesting against coffee a little too much. Admit it. You are Elevator Guy!

Fuck.

You caught me.

I thought my name would disguise me.

Sorry about all the fuss

codelette wrote:Somebody please remind me about Rebecca's contributions to skeptical areas...

She shouted at them?

Tigzy wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:

UnbelieveSteve wrote:Here's a version of ool0n's blocklist without the rest of the bullshit on his page.
No registering necessary. http://x2t.com/blocklist

There's nearly two hundred twitter accounts there!
Are those two nitwits still trying to convince people that their objective is to block only those accounts persistantly making unwanted tweets at FTBers?
Bollocks.

:lol: I didn't make any tweets at any FTBers at all.

My work account is on there as well. I don't contact A+/FTB/etc on that account.

Tony Parsehole wrote:

Jonathan wrote:Once again the A+ers are pushing the line that racism isn't racism if the person or people don't have institutional power behind them.

Just where the hell does this "definition" come from? Checked four or five different dictionaries and none of them deem racism to require institutional power; just discrimination based on race.

It came from the Magical Land Of Madeupwank where the trees are made of chocolate and facts are whatever your dreams want them to be.

http://shetterly.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04 ... er-so.html - from Judith H. Katz circa 1970. In other words, its the usual Marxist woo.

Jonathan wrote:Once again the A+ers are pushing the line that racism isn't racism if the person or people don't have institutional power behind them.

Just where the hell does this "definition" come from? Checked four or five different dictionaries and none of them deem racism to require institutional power; just discrimination based on race.

It's the definition you have to buy into to post there. It is a way of "pre-winning" an argument.

It is similar to the "Don't Feed the Trolls is Bad Science" meme that gets passed around. I finally looked that up just now and it turns out it is a blog post supported by no science whatsoever. Stephanie Zvan just picked up on the "Bad Science" meme (which is usually used when people are really fucking doing science!) and tried to apply that credibility to her argument by the power of words.

The blog itself addresses the psuedoscientific justification often given for "Don't feed the trolls!" with its own pseudoscientific conjecture. It is at the very least also bad science. Maybe one scientific solution would actually be to look at a bunch of people who do feed the trolls and a bunch of people who don't and see who has the better outcome.

codelette wrote:Somebody please remind me about Rebecca's contributions to skeptical areas...

She made a website that links to news articles that others wrote, and host articles written by guest bloggers (who dont get paid?) of questionable authority, thus articles are of questionable quality.

Or is that Arianna Huffington and the Huffington Post...?

UnbelieveSteve wrote:Here's a version of ool0n's blocklist without the rest of the bullshit on his page.
No registering necessary. http://x2t.com/blocklist

Looks like I finally made the list. Unfortunately, I have done nothing to earn my oolbot wings. I really must put more effort in.

rocko2466 wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:

UnbelieveSteve wrote:Here's a version of ool0n's blocklist without the rest of the bullshit on his page.
No registering necessary. http://x2t.com/blocklist

There's nearly two hundred twitter accounts there!
Are those two nitwits still trying to convince people that their objective is to block only those accounts persistantly making unwanted tweets at FTBers?
Bollocks.

lol thunderf00t is on there.

And Sarah Mayhew... and Barbara Drescher...

This is the FAQ for the block bot, a service to automatically block trolls / assholes / fools and bigots for Twitter users as defined by me and Aratina Cage and anyone who is added as a “blocker”.

Seriously?

rocko2466 wrote:I now will do a shameless repost of my video to cater for time differences.

[youtube]CLNR_TMQU6A[/youtube]

In other news, I have a Chris Clarke one in preparation. It's slightly musical.

Has that Atheismplus thread been deleted? If so, they must be keeping an eye on you Rocko. You are being watched.

Skep tickle wrote:Registered for TAM today.

The only hint of a "conference policy" or other warnings about behavior yadda yadda is this one paragraph right before you click to submit payment:

While TAM is generally family friendly, not all content may be suitable for children, and parental discretion is advised. Registration is required for children 13 and up. Children 12 and under are not permitted in conference sessions. Prices are subject to change without notice. Refund policy: 50% of charged amount will be refunded if canceled by June 15, 2012. Audio/Visual Recording for personal use only. We reserve the right to refuse entry to anyone. Disruptive individuals will be asked to leave. Questions? Email TAM@randi.org.

The confirmation email repeats only the last part (bolding as in original) without any additional verbiage specifying how attendees should act toward other people:

Refund policy: 50% of charged amount will be refunded if canceled by June 15, 2013.

Audio/Visual Recording for personal use only. We reserve the right to refuse entry to anyone. Disruptive individuals will be asked to leave.

Refreshing. :D

And it covers every eventually. You don't need more than that.

Tigzy wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:

UnbelieveSteve wrote:Here's a version of ool0n's blocklist without the rest of the bullshit on his page.
No registering necessary. http://x2t.com/blocklist

There's nearly two hundred twitter accounts there!
Are those two nitwits still trying to convince people that their objective is to block only those accounts persistantly making unwanted tweets at FTBers?
Bollocks.

:lol: I didn't make any tweets at any FTBers at all.

Question, question: if that works, why you guys don't make a Block Bot Model II just to piss them off? It would at least be funny and fuel for weeks of drama.

ERV wrote:

codelette wrote:Somebody please remind me about Rebecca's contributions to skeptical areas...

She made a website that links to news articles that others wrote, and host articles written by guest bloggers (who dont get paid?) of questionable authority, thus articles are of questionable quality.

Or is that Arianna Huffington and the Huffington Post...?

No, no. She was nerly raped by an elevator on a coffe machine, or something. That's the thing.

acathode wrote:On Harriet Halls blogpost:

A wild Rebecca Watson appears!
She uses vapid snark!
It's super ineffective!

I'm just wondering what the point of Watson's comment was. Hall's post wasn't about her, the things Watson writes in her comment is almost completely OT, and the thinly veiled insult and snark makes Watson seem like a juvenile, bickering dramaqueen, which is not lost on most of the commenters, as they apparently left high school decades ago (both physically and mentally).

Just what was going through Watson's head when she wrote that drivel? There were nothing in the post aimed at Watson that required her to defend herself, so why show up like that and make an utter fool out of herself?

http://www.alstefanelli.com/butthurt.png

Philip of Tealand wrote:

Scented Nectar wrote: Uh huh... I think you are protesting against coffee a little too much. Admit it. You are Elevator Guy!

Fuck.

You caught me.

I thought my name would disguise me.

Sorry about all the fuss

Well, I meant Michael, but now that you've fessed up, we know it's YOU.

Anyways, tell me. Did her answer "no" come in any of the following forms?
1 - "NO! FUCK OFF YOU MISOGYNIST!"
2 - "no thanks"
3 - "AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH HEEEEEELLLLPP!!!!!!!"
4 - mace or pepper spray
5 - "yes" (despite her implied "no" in her video) afterwhich you had coffee and maybe sex too
6 - you didn't actually ask her anything - she made the moves on you
7 - she raped and/or sexually assaulted and/or sexually harassed you even though you said "no"
8 - you got on the elevator to find her having an imaginary, but out loud, conversation with an invisible person that had something to do with coffee
9 - other

acathode wrote:..Just what was going through Watson's head when she wrote that drivel?

At least five hundred milligrams of pure ethanol, most likely.

Philip of Tealand wrote:

Scented Nectar wrote: Uh huh... I think you are protesting against coffee a little too much. Admit it. You are Elevator Guy!

Fuck.

You caught me.

I thought my name would disguise me.

Sorry about all the fuss

So the Slyme Pit finally did it, and doxxed the Elevator Guy.

I told PZ you guys were the worst. This place is like Nazi German.

AnotherLurkerMkII wrote:

Tigzy wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:

UnbelieveSteve wrote:Here's a version of ool0n's blocklist without the rest of the bullshit on his page.
No registering necessary. http://x2t.com/blocklist

There's nearly two hundred twitter accounts there!
Are those two nitwits still trying to convince people that their objective is to block only those accounts persistantly making unwanted tweets at FTBers?
Bollocks.

:lol: I didn't make any tweets at any FTBers at all.

Question, question: if that works, why you guys don't make a Block Bot Model II just to piss them off? It would at least be funny and fuel for weeks of drama.

Because we're not slimy shit-stains who get off on manipulating Twitter to silence people who we disagree with.

Steven Novella chimes in to the Harriet Hall threat with a bit of a slapdown for Rebecca - pointing out that there are many posts on Skepchick blog using exactly the same language that the SJW and Watson are using to criticize Hall.

http://i.imgur.com/Rw771Lq.jpg

He should be careful.
She might kick him off the 'Skepchicks Guide to the Universe'

Dick Strawkins wrote:Steven Novella chimes in to the Harriet Hall threat with a bit of a slapdown for Rebecca - pointing out that there are many posts on Skepchick blog using exactly the same language that the SJW and Watson are using to criticize Hall.

http://i.imgur.com/Rw771Lq.jpg

He should be careful.
She might kick him off the 'Skepchicks Guide to the Universe'

Harriet Hall thread
I'm too young to go all Ophelia!

Scented Nectar wrote:

Philip of Tealand wrote:

Scented Nectar wrote: Uh huh... I think you are protesting against coffee a little too much. Admit it. You are Elevator Guy!

Fuck.

You caught me.

I thought my name would disguise me.

Sorry about all the fuss

Well, I meant Michael, but now that you've fessed up, we know it's YOU.

Anyways, tell me. Did her answer "no" come in any of the following forms?
1 - "NO! FUCK OFF YOU MISOGYNIST!"
2 - "no thanks"
3 - "AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH HEEEEEELLLLPP!!!!!!!"
4 - mace or pepper spray
5 - "yes" (despite her implied "no" in her video) afterwhich you had coffee and maybe sex too
6 - you didn't actually ask her anything - she made the moves on you
7 - she raped and/or sexually assaulted and/or sexually harassed you even though you said "no"
8 - you got on the elevator to find her having an imaginary, but out loud, conversation with an invisible person that had something to do with coffee
9 - other

9) Other

I shoved her out the lift and made mad passionate man love with D.P.R Jones who'd slipped something into my drink earlier

AnotherLurkerMkII wrote: Question, question: if that works, why you guys don't make a Block Bot Model II just to piss them off? It would at least be funny and fuel for weeks of drama.

Personally speaking, it's a point of principle. I don't believe in censoring them. Especially so, considering their entertainment value.

Ellenbeth Wachs, for instance, is as good as any sitcom, IMO.

AbsurdWalls wrote:

rocko2466 wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:

UnbelieveSteve wrote:Here's a version of ool0n's blocklist without the rest of the bullshit on his page.
No registering necessary. http://x2t.com/blocklist

There's nearly two hundred twitter accounts there!
Are those two nitwits still trying to convince people that their objective is to block only those accounts persistantly making unwanted tweets at FTBers?
Bollocks.

lol thunderf00t is on there.

And Sarah Mayhew... and Barbara Drescher...

This is the FAQ for the block bot, a service to automatically block trolls / assholes / fools and bigots for Twitter users as defined by me and Aratina Cage and anyone who is added as a “blocker”.

Seriously?

It's amusing to me that they are so completely ignorant of human behavior. The more the start shoving people like Mayhew and Drescher into the "pit bucket, the more they bring "legitimacy" to the 'pit. "Oh, well, Barbara Drescher is lumped in, let me see what this is all about".

If they thought about this for more than two seconds, with an actual functioning brain, they'd realize that using that list as a catchall for EVERYONE who has ever disagreed with them is the worst way possible. The only way it can have any value is for it to truly be a "worst of the worst". I'm surprised that paula kirby and dawkins aren't on it, given the idiots running that clown show.

Dick Strawkins wrote:Steven Novella chimes in to the Harriet Hall threat with a bit of a slapdown for Rebecca - pointing out that there are many posts on Skepchick blog using exactly the same language that the SJW and Watson are using to criticize Hall.

http://i.imgur.com/Rw771Lq.jpg

He should be careful.
She might kick him off the 'Skepchicks Guide to the Universe'

Oh look at him using logic and rationality.

I'm beginning to wonder if he actually talks to rebecca. Ever.

Tigzy wrote:

AnotherLurkerMkII wrote: Ellenbeth Wachs, for instance, is as good as any sitcom, IMO.

Yes, but unfortunately she can vary in quality levels between the ranges of Fawlty Towers and Hi-De-Hi.
Does anyone know if she is going to the Dublin conference?

I had this terrible dream last night that I'd gone over to Ireland to visit some relatives and accidently wandered into the conference hotel, and got trapped in the lift with Ophelia and Rebecca.
If Ellenbeth Wachs is going too I'll be afraid to sleep tonight!

Tigzy wrote:

AnotherLurkerMkII wrote: Question, question: if that works, why you guys don't make a Block Bot Model II just to piss them off? It would at least be funny and fuel for weeks of drama.

Personally speaking, it's a point of principle. I don't believe in censoring them. Especially so, considering their entertainment value.

Ellenbeth Wachs, for instance, is as good as any sitcom, IMO.

Exactly. you don't censor the cray cray, you make popcorn and enjoy that shit. Ellenbeth missed her calling. She should have been on "The Young Ones".

Look at this image that Will included in his most recent response to Harriet Hall. Just look at it for awhile:

http://skepchick.org/wp-content/uploads/url-3.jpeg

Metalogic42 wrote:Look at this image that Will included in his most recent response to Harriet Hall. Just look at it for awhile:

http://skepchick.org/wp-content/uploads/url-3.jpeg

Dunno about you, but I'm thinking crop circles.

Metalogic42 wrote:Look at this image that Will included in his most recent response to Harriet Hall. Just look at it for awhile:

http://skepchick.org/wp-content/uploads/url-3.jpeg

"What sign are you?"
:rimshot:

Tigzy wrote:

Metalogic42 wrote:Look at this image that Will included in his most recent response to Harriet Hall. Just look at it for awhile:

http://skepchick.org/wp-content/uploads/url-3.jpeg

Dunno about you, but I'm thinking crop circles.

Yes, it reminds me of that Led Zepp album cover.

http://seeker401.files.wordpress.com/20 ... ppelin.jpg

It reminds me of this:

http://pokemon.neoseeker.com/w/i/pokemon/f/f1/Unown.png

Re the twitter block bot... You blocked twitter folks have now been discriminated against. the fact that it has the institutional support of Twitter (it must be an institution because if it was a company then surely they would have a model that would make them money) therefore you can never again be criticized for anything. Congrats.

So what to you have to do to be designated "Other"?