Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

Old subthreads
Clarence
.
.
Posts: 2095
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:40 pm

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24241

Post by Clarence »

Angry_Drunk wrote:
Clarence wrote:
Angry_Drunk wrote:For someone who claims to have lurked here for a year, our new chew-toy Clarence seems oddly ignorant of the goings on. E.g. the provenance of Welch's stupid avatar.
And this is what happens when you post angry and drunk.
I specifically said I never came here every day. Indeed there were months I might visit once, and other months I might be here reading almost daily. Partly depended on what was happening in the skeptical community.

Now I'm being attacked for NOT LURKING ENOUGH. WOW , lol.
I predict my crappy haircut in this 3 year old pic will be next.
No Princess, you're being "attacked" (Ophelia much?) for being yet another tedious, repetitive derpwad who came running in here thinking we'd appreciate a bunch of fucktarded MRA bullshit and then getting his hopes and dreams dashed on the cruel rocks of Welch's unceasing ability to be an asshole. It happens on a fairly frequent basis.
The temptation was to praise you because despite your inebriation you did notice that Welch is an asshole. But you are so drunk I think you forgot that The Slymepit isn't exactly listed in any bundle of links as an MRA site. Sorry dear, that's not why I came here. Now go back to your drinking and pink elephants.

Angry_Drunk
.
.
Posts: 458
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 12:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24242

Post by Angry_Drunk »

Clarence wrote:
Angry_Drunk wrote:
Clarence wrote:
Angry_Drunk wrote:For someone who claims to have lurked here for a year, our new chew-toy Clarence seems oddly ignorant of the goings on. E.g. the provenance of Welch's stupid avatar.
And this is what happens when you post angry and drunk.
I specifically said I never came here every day. Indeed there were months I might visit once, and other months I might be here reading almost daily. Partly depended on what was happening in the skeptical community.

Now I'm being attacked for NOT LURKING ENOUGH. WOW , lol.
I predict my crappy haircut in this 3 year old pic will be next.
No Princess, you're being "attacked" (Ophelia much?) for being yet another tedious, repetitive derpwad who came running in here thinking we'd appreciate a bunch of fucktarded MRA bullshit and then getting his hopes and dreams dashed on the cruel rocks of Welch's unceasing ability to be an asshole. It happens on a fairly frequent basis.
The temptation was to praise you because despite your inebriation you did notice that Welch is an asshole. But you are so drunk I think you forgot that The Slymepit isn't exactly listed in any bundle of links as an MRA site. Sorry dear, that's not why I came here. Now go back to your drinking and pink elephants.
Are you somehow under the impression that insulting people based on their avatars and screen names makes you look smart

Clarence
.
.
Posts: 2095
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:40 pm

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24243

Post by Clarence »

LMU wrote:
Clarence wrote:
Southern wrote:
Clarence wrote:
it's Eucli's younger brother
Whoever that is.
Then again, this IS the pit and there are some feminists and probably a few OOLON sock puppets lurking about...
Pff. Everybody knows that the only sock puppets are franc's.

And, as you are discussing with welch and all, I'm pretty sure YOU are a sock puppet of franc hoggle. Ha! Gotcha.
I can see I'm REALLY going to have to catch up on who this Franc Hoggle guy is. You guys bring him up all the time, but I can remember nothing about him from the original EG brouhaha or as having anything to do with why this site was formed by Erv.

I'll do a googles. I'm not lazy. And I probably knew who he was but forgot. I'm getting old...just turned 42. I plead advanced age or wisdom or something.
Franc has a blog here.

Also welch's avatar is a reference to a line from My Immortal.
Thanks for the links. Preliminary reading seems to show that Hoggle isn't a fan of Watson's or radical feminism.
I also read the first two chapters of "My Immortal". I'm not sure whether to laugh or to cry , honestly. My God, that is horrible. I Guess Welch must have read the thing all the way through and... it...it... TWISTED him. :o

Clarence
.
.
Posts: 2095
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:40 pm

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24244

Post by Clarence »

Angry_Drunk wrote:
Clarence wrote:
Angry_Drunk wrote:
Clarence wrote:
Angry_Drunk wrote:For someone who claims to have lurked here for a year, our new chew-toy Clarence seems oddly ignorant of the goings on. E.g. the provenance of Welch's stupid avatar.
And this is what happens when you post angry and drunk.
I specifically said I never came here every day. Indeed there were months I might visit once, and other months I might be here reading almost daily. Partly depended on what was happening in the skeptical community.

Now I'm being attacked for NOT LURKING ENOUGH. WOW , lol.
I predict my crappy haircut in this 3 year old pic will be next.
No Princess, you're being "attacked" (Ophelia much?) for being yet another tedious, repetitive derpwad who came running in here thinking we'd appreciate a bunch of fucktarded MRA bullshit and then getting his hopes and dreams dashed on the cruel rocks of Welch's unceasing ability to be an asshole. It happens on a fairly frequent basis.
The temptation was to praise you because despite your inebriation you did notice that Welch is an asshole. But you are so drunk I think you forgot that The Slymepit isn't exactly listed in any bundle of links as an MRA site. Sorry dear, that's not why I came here. Now go back to your drinking and pink elephants.
Are you somehow under the impression that insulting people based on their avatars and screen names makes you look smart
However, I 'look' since you can't get your facts straight as to either my motivations or even what I plainly said, I know that you aren't smart. Probably liquor killing off those brain cells...

JackSkeptic
.
.
Posts: 3222
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24245

Post by JackSkeptic »

Clarence wrote:
Angry_Drunk wrote:For someone who claims to have lurked here for a year, our new chew-toy Clarence seems oddly ignorant of the goings on. E.g. the provenance of Welch's stupid avatar.
And this is what happens when you post angry and drunk.
I specifically said I never came here every day. Indeed there were months I might visit once, and other months I might be here reading almost daily. Partly depended on what was happening in the skeptical community.

Now I'm being attacked for NOT LURKING ENOUGH. WOW , lol.
I predict my crappy haircut in this 3 year old pic will be next.
I have an intense dislike for personal attacks which is why I ignore some of Welsh's posts. It plays into the hands of the clowns and comes across as childish. However, people do it without realising or caring that it blows away a lot of their credibility. So the joke is on them, not you.

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24246

Post by Scented Nectar »

AndrewV69 wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote: I won't just be mostly retired, I'll be totally, completely, fully, and officially retired. I'm very, very happy and excited about it.
I know the feeling. Congratz!
Ugh, things got delayed. I'm back in limboland of being retired but not officially being retired. Oh well, soon.

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24247

Post by AndrewV69 »

Can one of you Americans explain this to me? As far as I can recall the parents of Govener Haley is a Sikh and Roan Garcia-Quintana is a Cuban immigrant. I need some help making sense out of this.

South Carolina governor appointed white supremacist to steering committee
http://syndicatednewsservices.com/2013/ ... committee/

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24248

Post by AndrewV69 »

Scented Nectar wrote:
AndrewV69 wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote: I won't just be mostly retired, I'll be totally, completely, fully, and officially retired. I'm very, very happy and excited about it.
I know the feeling. Congratz!
Ugh, things got delayed. I'm back in limboland of being retired but not officially being retired. Oh well, soon.
Ow. My condolences.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24249

Post by Skep tickle »

AndrewV69 wrote:Can one of you Americans explain this to me? As far as I can recall the parents of Govener Haley is a Sikh and Roan Garcia-Quintana is a Cuban immigrant. I need some help making sense out of this.

South Carolina governor appointed white supremacist to steering committee
http://syndicatednewsservices.com/2013/ ... committee/
She's a Republican. She was raised Sikh but now identifies as Christian. She apparently thinks that this guy's viewpoint will be helpful to her re-election campaign in South Carolina, a conservative state.

The immigration stance is a bit of a head-scratcher, but seems like a "my family deserved to come here, now slam the doors on everyone else!" kind of stance. Probably not all that unusual, given how anti-immigration so many people are in this nation made up overwhelmingly of immigrants and their direct descendents.

Ericb
.
.
Posts: 881
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:20 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24250

Post by Ericb »

AndrewV69 wrote:Can one of you Americans explain this to me? As far as I can recall the parents of Govener Haley is a Sikh and Roan Garcia-Quintana is a Cuban immigrant. I need some help making sense out of this.

South Carolina governor appointed white supremacist to steering committee
http://syndicatednewsservices.com/2013/ ... committee/

We live in a world where there are Russo-Israeli Neo-Nazis. Anything is possible ... especially in South Carolina.

Angry_Drunk
.
.
Posts: 458
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 12:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24251

Post by Angry_Drunk »

Skep tickle wrote:
AndrewV69 wrote:Can one of you Americans explain this to me? As far as I can recall the parents of Govener Haley is a Sikh and Roan Garcia-Quintana is a Cuban immigrant. I need some help making sense out of this.

South Carolina governor appointed white supremacist to steering committee
http://syndicatednewsservices.com/2013/ ... committee/
She's a Republican. She was raised Sikh but now identifies as Christian. She apparently thinks that this guy's viewpoint will be helpful to her re-election campaign in South Carolina, a conservative state.

The immigration stance is a bit of a head-scratcher, but seems like a "my family deserved to come here, now slam the doors on everyone else!" kind of stance. Probably not all that unusual, given how anti-immigration so many people are in this nation made up overwhelmingly of immigrants and their direct descendents.
"Got mine, fuck you!" is the official slogan of the Republican Party

Dave
.
.
Posts: 1975
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 6:03 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24252

Post by Dave »

Lsuoma wrote:I just noticed that Arnieman is an anagram of Armenian.
Eench?

Ive been misreading it and doing doubletakes for a while -- "Wait, why is Abbie talking about my people -- Oh, nevermind."

Ericb
.
.
Posts: 881
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:20 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24253

Post by Ericb »

Skep tickle wrote:
AndrewV69 wrote:Can one of you Americans explain this to me? As far as I can recall the parents of Govener Haley is a Sikh and Roan Garcia-Quintana is a Cuban immigrant. I need some help making sense out of this.

South Carolina governor appointed white supremacist to steering committee
http://syndicatednewsservices.com/2013/ ... committee/
She's a Republican. She was raised Sikh but now identifies as Christian. She apparently thinks that this guy's viewpoint will be helpful to her re-election campaign in South Carolina, a conservative state.

The immigration stance is a bit of a head-scratcher, but seems like a "my family deserved to come here, now slam the doors on everyone else!" kind of stance. Probably not all that unusual, given how anti-immigration so many people are in this nation made up overwhelmingly of immigrants and their direct descendents.
See also Bobby Jindal governor of Louisiana.

nippletwister
.
.
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:17 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24254

Post by nippletwister »

Clarence wrote:
nippletwister wrote:Speaking as a complete nobody, I'm not sure if Clarence is trolling, has internet rage issues and maybe trouble with the quote function, or just needs to settle down, shake his bitch-tits out of his polo shirt, and get comfortable with an open forum.

Time will tell.
I haven't ran to any Moderator Mommy asking for help, even if such was available which it isn't.
I knew what this place was when I signed up here the other day. I've been a lurker quite a bit for over a year now, though not usually a daily one. I discovered this place through Scented Nectars blog, where I left a few comments.
I admit I have trouble with the quote function HERE, but apparently only when 5 or more are embedded.
And excuse me if I respond with insults back when I get insulted. How that translates to 'internet rage' is beyond me.

Fair enough, and sorry about the "tits" crack. And I don't want to over-interpret, but you do read a bit angry IMO. That could just be from the interaction with Welch, it can do that to people.

Peace.

Dave
.
.
Posts: 1975
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 6:03 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24255

Post by Dave »

Notung wrote:Let's not forget that Cornwell is on the board.

I also recognise Tabash - for some reason I assume he'd take the side of rationality. Please, Eddie, I like you!
Eddie Tabash? Yeah, like a contributor to ISWFACE is likely to fall in with these clowns.

As I said earlier, I would be shocked if Lindsay hadnt felt out the Board previously. Not necessarily in a "Im doing X, will you support me?" level of explictness, but almost certainly in a, "BTW, have you seen whats going on over there?" Or "Im a little concerned that some of the people involved in WIS arent fully in tune with CFI's main goals, what do you think?" He doesnt strike me as an idiot, so he knew there would be fall out from his actions.

As to his apology. Its the right thing: The North Korea and the Alternate Universe things were over the top. They would have been fine if he was just a blogger, but they were a bit much for the leader of a major secularism org.

Submariner
.
.
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:05 pm
Location: Florida, US of A
Contact:

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24256

Post by Submariner »

nippletwister wrote:
Fair enough, and sorry about the "tits" crack. And I don't want to over-interpret, but you do read a bit angry IMO. That could just be from the interaction with Welch, it can do that to people.

Peace.
Hey, I like welch.

TheMudbrooker
.
.
Posts: 786
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:15 pm

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24257

Post by TheMudbrooker »

Scented Nectar wrote:
AndrewV69 wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote: I won't just be mostly retired, I'll be totally, completely, fully, and officially retired. I'm very, very happy and excited about it.
I know the feeling. Congratz!
Ugh, things got delayed. I'm back in limboland of being retired but not officially being retired. Oh well, soon.
You want I should come by and lean on a few people?

bovarchist
.
.
Posts: 1925
Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:07 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24258

Post by bovarchist »

Clarence wrote:
LMU wrote:
Clarence wrote:
Southern wrote:
Clarence wrote:
Whoever that is.
Then again, this IS the pit and there are some feminists and probably a few OOLON sock puppets lurking about...
Pff. Everybody knows that the only sock puppets are franc's.

And, as you are discussing with welch and all, I'm pretty sure YOU are a sock puppet of franc hoggle. Ha! Gotcha.
I can see I'm REALLY going to have to catch up on who this Franc Hoggle guy is. You guys bring him up all the time, but I can remember nothing about him from the original EG brouhaha or as having anything to do with why this site was formed by Erv.

I'll do a googles. I'm not lazy. And I probably knew who he was but forgot. I'm getting old...just turned 42. I plead advanced age or wisdom or something.


Franc has a blog here.

Also welch's avatar is a reference to a line from My Immortal.
Thanks for the links. Preliminary reading seems to show that Hoggle isn't a fan of Watson's or radical feminism.
I also read the first two chapters of "My Immortal". I'm not sure whether to laugh or to cry , honestly. My God, that is horrible. I Guess Welch must have read the thing all the way through and... it...it... TWISTED him. :o
http://weknowmemes.com/generator/upload ... 811083.jpg

curriejean
.
.
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:52 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24259

Post by curriejean »

I've been meaning to add to this discussion:
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:
deLurch wrote:
Stretchycheese wrote:Perhaps it might not be a bad idea for dissenting atheist women to set up an alternative secular women's group. The new group could compete with Secular Women, advocating a more egalitarian and humanistic point of view, rather than a dogmatic, gynocentric radical feminist perspective.
The problem there is there is no huge driving force for that as the Humanists pretty much have that covered, minus the whole getting rid of half the population.
Perhaps something more along the lines of a petition signed by women who feel welcome in secularism, or felt welcome until they were told they couldn't, would be more practical. If it was well enough publicised it would take the wind out of a few sails. It needs to be made as clear as possible that no evidence of a concerted war on women in mainstream secularism has ever been provided. It should be made much harder for the perpetuators of that lie to deflect with demands to condemn 4chan style losers on the internet when pressed for evidence of actual real world intimidation. They'd find it much harder to employ those tactics against a sizeable group of women.This business with Silverman is a case in point. He can either demonstrate that secularism is awash with misogyny, or he can't, and demanding condemnation of trolls on sites out of one's control by people of little influence are a blatant dodge.
I agree completely. A group competing with the limiting ideologies of SecularWomen/FtB/Skepchick would stand a chance of becoming an irrelevant splinter. The petition idea sounds much better, as it would keep the focus on ideas and strategies within secularism, rather than encouraging even more divisive personal alliances.

I'd like to contribute to the effort. I'm not well-known in the general sphere of things and I'm not good with publicity, but I hope I can help with writing the petition's intro/purpose statement. I would love to see a group effort in writing it, to make it as representative and inclusive as possible. I'll start on a rough first draft.

Since CFI is planning to meet in June for an official discussion of the negative response to Lindsay's WIS2 opening (CFI twitter, yesterday), I think it would be a good idea to get working on this petition and get it circulating ASAP.

I've started a new thread for the petition:

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=312

I've never made a petition before. If anyone has suggestions for the best petition site to use, as well as how to get this thing shared around once it's completed, I would be very appreciative.

cunt
.
.
Posts: 2768
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:06 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24260

Post by cunt »

Jack wrote:
Clarence wrote:
Angry_Drunk wrote:For someone who claims to have lurked here for a year, our new chew-toy Clarence seems oddly ignorant of the goings on. E.g. the provenance of Welch's stupid avatar.
And this is what happens when you post angry and drunk.
I specifically said I never came here every day. Indeed there were months I might visit once, and other months I might be here reading almost daily. Partly depended on what was happening in the skeptical community.

Now I'm being attacked for NOT LURKING ENOUGH. WOW , lol.
I predict my crappy haircut in this 3 year old pic will be next.
I have an intense dislike for personal attacks which is why I ignore some of Welsh's posts. It plays into the hands of the clowns and comes across as childish. However, people do it without realising or caring that it blows away a lot of their credibility. So the joke is on them, not you.
I ignore about a quarter of your posts. You make so much of an effort to always appear reasonable it comes across as shit-eating disingenuousness.

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24261

Post by Scented Nectar »

Clarence wrote:Congrats on your retirement. I hope you have a happy one but occasionally come back to your blog too. I've missed it, though I admit all the #&#@&@!!! video links slowed down this 400 dollar 5 year old Walmart Special quite a bit until I installed a 'new' (well..was new 3 years ago) video card instead of using the onboard graphics.
Thanks, but I spoke too soon. Red tape is holding shit up and delaying it. Soon though. I'll also get back to more blogging and video overloads. :)

Whig
.
.
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 11:39 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24262

Post by Whig »

AndrewV69 wrote:Can one of you Americans explain this to me? As far as I can recall the parents of Govener Haley is a Sikh and Roan Garcia-Quintana is a Cuban immigrant. I need some help making sense out of this.

South Carolina governor appointed white supremacist to steering committee
http://syndicatednewsservices.com/2013/ ... committee/
She's a conservative christian republican in South Carolina, things like that come up every now and then.

JackSkeptic
.
.
Posts: 3222
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24263

Post by JackSkeptic »

Dave wrote:
Notung wrote:Let's not forget that Cornwell is on the board.

I also recognise Tabash - for some reason I assume he'd take the side of rationality. Please, Eddie, I like you!
Eddie Tabash? Yeah, like a contributor to ISWFACE is likely to fall in with these clowns.

As I said earlier, I would be shocked if Lindsay hadnt felt out the Board previously. Not necessarily in a "Im doing X, will you support me?" level of explictness, but almost certainly in a, "BTW, have you seen whats going on over there?" Or "Im a little concerned that some of the people involved in WIS arent fully in tune with CFI's main goals, what do you think?" He doesnt strike me as an idiot, so he knew there would be fall out from his actions.

As to his apology. Its the right thing: The North Korea and the Alternate Universe things were over the top. They would have been fine if he was just a blogger, but they were a bit much for the leader of a major secularism org.
I am as certain as I can be the board was sounded out first. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows the vitriol and unsophisticated lies he would face. I see no evidence he won't have known that and in fact came preprepared with the outline of his responses. The clowns are very predictable because they are so unsubtle and binary. Either they love you or they hate you and that is based solely on whether you disagree with them in anything (even minor) or 100% support them. They don't do nuance or proportional responses. They only care about winning at any cost and they are incapable of doing that using reason and logic as their ideas simply do not stack up the way they want them to.

I suspect it would be trivial for any of us to ghost write a response such as provided by Carrier. It's the same old over the top emotive, irrational and unevidenced rubbish. The pseudo intellectual style is just a smoke screen for the gullible.

JackSkeptic
.
.
Posts: 3222
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24264

Post by JackSkeptic »

curriejean wrote:I've been meaning to add to this discussion:
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:
deLurch wrote:
Stretchycheese wrote:Perhaps it might not be a bad idea for dissenting atheist women to set up an alternative secular women's group. The new group could compete with Secular Women, advocating a more egalitarian and humanistic point of view, rather than a dogmatic, gynocentric radical feminist perspective.
The problem there is there is no huge driving force for that as the Humanists pretty much have that covered, minus the whole getting rid of half the population.
Perhaps something more along the lines of a petition signed by women who feel welcome in secularism, or felt welcome until they were told they couldn't, would be more practical. If it was well enough publicised it would take the wind out of a few sails. It needs to be made as clear as possible that no evidence of a concerted war on women in mainstream secularism has ever been provided. It should be made much harder for the perpetuators of that lie to deflect with demands to condemn 4chan style losers on the internet when pressed for evidence of actual real world intimidation. They'd find it much harder to employ those tactics against a sizeable group of women.This business with Silverman is a case in point. He can either demonstrate that secularism is awash with misogyny, or he can't, and demanding condemnation of trolls on sites out of one's control by people of little influence are a blatant dodge.
I agree completely. A group competing with the limiting ideologies of SecularWomen/FtB/Skepchick would stand a chance of becoming an irrelevant splinter. The petition idea sounds much better, as it would keep the focus on ideas and strategies within secularism, rather than encouraging even more divisive personal alliances.

I'd like to contribute to the effort. I'm not well-known in the general sphere of things and I'm not good with publicity, but I hope I can help with writing the petition's intro/purpose statement. I would love to see a group effort in writing it, to make it as representative and inclusive as possible. I'll start on a rough first draft.

Since CFI is planning to meet in June for an official discussion of the negative response to Lindsay's WIS2 opening (CFI twitter, yesterday), I think it would be a good idea to get working on this petition and get it circulating ASAP.

I've started a new thread for the petition:

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=312

I've never made a petition before. If anyone has suggestions for the best petition site to use, as well as how to get this thing shared around once it's completed, I would be very appreciative.
You can call it 'The Chill Girls Charter'. Maybe not.

JackSkeptic
.
.
Posts: 3222
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24265

Post by JackSkeptic »

cunt wrote:
Jack wrote:
Clarence wrote:
Angry_Drunk wrote:For someone who claims to have lurked here for a year, our new chew-toy Clarence seems oddly ignorant of the goings on. E.g. the provenance of Welch's stupid avatar.
And this is what happens when you post angry and drunk.
I specifically said I never came here every day. Indeed there were months I might visit once, and other months I might be here reading almost daily. Partly depended on what was happening in the skeptical community.

Now I'm being attacked for NOT LURKING ENOUGH. WOW , lol.
I predict my crappy haircut in this 3 year old pic will be next.
I have an intense dislike for personal attacks which is why I ignore some of Welsh's posts. It plays into the hands of the clowns and comes across as childish. However, people do it without realising or caring that it blows away a lot of their credibility. So the joke is on them, not you.
I ignore about a quarter of your posts. You make so much of an effort to always appear reasonable it comes across as shit-eating disingenuousness.
We all have our own style.

Trophy
.
.
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:17 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24266

Post by Trophy »

I really have a serious question for Mr Silverman: Did he support Obama and his promise of no preconditions for talking with Iran? If no, then I will shut up but if yes, how the fuck he justifies the dissonance? If it was fine to talk with Iran, a bloodthirsty dictatorship that has killed, suppressed, and robbed many (including women!) of their freedom, liberty, and even life, then what the fuck is wrong with talking to JV?

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24267

Post by welch »

Clarence wrote:
welch wrote:
Clarence wrote:
You whining about goalpost moving. Now THAT is irony. I bet you're the most awesome rules lawyer ever. Still butthurt about that whole "I sourced from a shitty website that used random reports of vigilantism, and you responded with an example of a national approval of violence against women! UNFAIR!"
What was your response?

1) rape doesn't count, only domestic violence
2) you will only accept examples that fit your millimeter-wide narrow definition of domestic violence
3) women do shitty things too, so men are innocent.

At that point, you're a moron, and I treat you as such.

And did your attempt to whip out your Internet dick fail? I bet that "I've been on the Internet since 1998 wows the millennials. Here? Not so much, especially since you've been a troll ever since. That's the problem with Internet dicks. Someone always has a bigger one.

And really, if you're so lame that mocking D&D is the best you have, (fuck yeah I play that shit, I have damned near since it was first called D&D), at least get the cultural references right.
Since you are slow or dishonest or maybe both, I will make this a simple 101 level lesson for you.
A. I talk about domestic violence and link to a site that shows reports of both vigilantist AND LEGAL penalties for such actions in order to show that society wasn't all rah-rah about domestic violence. Yes, dumbass it was ILLEGAL TO BEAT YOUR FUCKING WIFE. Do you deny that? Are you going to try to tell me there was 'rule of thumb'?
Actually, that site didn't do shit to analyze the laws at the time. It supplied a bunch of anectdotes and examples of vigilantism. It features a bunch of newspaper articles, but again, nothing really involving laws. That would have required, you know, linking to laws and court decisions. Which isn't as much fun, but there you go.

It also parses things, as you do, *extremely* finely. Which was something I noticed, because by focusing on one highly specific crime and anecdotes, it was ignoring the overall problem, and again, was essentially nothing but a collection of anecdotes. I responded showing a different part of the same problem, to point out that no, it isn't a "myth". There was, for a long time, in this country and others, systemic support for abusing women.

Note that it doesn't mean your point that there were cases where the right thing was done is WRONG. But it does mean the idea that at no time has this country ever systemically, tacitly approved of violence against women, that the entire concept is a myth is simply incorrect.

It also does nothing to suggest that there aren't aspects of the laws of this country that don't fuck over men solely for being male. Because there are parts of the laws of this country that do that, and I wish the MRAs would stop allowing OMGFEMINISTS rage to distract them from problems that are not only more real, but more actionable. As hard as it may seem, it is much easier to fix a law than do whatever it is they want to do to feminism, it changes from second to second.

You had a few possible reactions. You of course, chose to rules lawyer it.
Clarence wrote:B. You bring up marital rape which is legally not counted as domestic violence and is not what I was talking about
Of course I brought up rape, because it's a form of domestic violence. Yes, different implementations of that concept have different penalties. For example, if you shoot your SO in the face and kill them, you will be tried for MURDER not simple Domestic Abuse or what have you. That doesn't mean what you did wasn't a form of domestic violence, it just means you're going to be tried for the crime of KILLING someone instead of the crime of punching them in the face. Still domestic violence.
Clarence wrote:C. I pointed out you could still be prosecuted for assault (not sexual assault but at least the violence) if you beat her and then raped her. I didn't say that it was all cool and all that marital rape wasn't illegal, I merely pointed out that men didn't have societal legitimacy to beat the crap out of their wives and then take sex from them.
Well, actually, they did have social and legal legitimacy to force their wives to have sex. In fact, in such cases where the only witness was the wife, she would have actually been legally barred from testifying against her husband. So, the only way he could have been tried back then would be for their to be an outside witness. Spousal privilege has obviously been modified so that yes, a wife or husband can now testify against their spouse, even if the spouse opposes it. But as recently as 1958, in Hawkins v. United States, the one spouse, (usually the husband), could shut down the ability of the other spouse to testify against them. This particular case is detailed here: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal ... /case.html

Now, at this point, you started this bizarre parsing of the difference between rape and using force, and it became obvious to me that you were determined to "win" no matter what, and that any form of discussion that did not result in you "winning" was of no use or interest to you. I was satisfied that I had proved my point, and if the only way for you to "win" was some bizarre "it only counts if they're convicted of the specific charge of domestic/spousal abuse", well, I had no interest in that sort of idiocy, or really, you at all. So, I started assholing you, because that's what one does with a rules lawyer. It's my response to people who play the ONLY THE WORDS THAT I SPECIFICALLY TYPE COUNT bullshit as well, and you were dipping a bit into that.
Clarence wrote:D. And you've been nothing but an asshole ever since, implying if not outright stating that I must approve of marital rape.
Guilty as charged on the asshole thing, the rest is your own insecurity. I do not think, did not imply, nor did I state you "favor" marital rape. I said you were being a fuckwad for how you were defining things. There's a difference. You were being a specious, rules-lawyering tit. I see no reason to treat you any better than I would anyone else playing that game.
Clarence wrote:As for the rest, I pointed out that I've been on the internet for a very long time as support that your stupidity and insults wouldn't faze me. In response to my argument about how I've taken lots of shit (and occasionally given it back) your brought up your technical prowess for some reason.
Sure thing puddinhead. You're such a badass and you don't care so hard that you keep coming back, because you just have to win. For whatever value of win you're currently scrabbling for. I don't faze you so hard that you find it impossible to not respond just to tell me how much I don't faze you. If I fazed you any less, you might be crying.

I didn't know fazing was homeopathic in nature. Huh, learn something new every day.
Clarence wrote:Anyway, I put my real photo up and leave myself open for shit about my weight, my face, my thinning hair, the clothes I am wearing, etc, while you put up something that looks like it came from the backside of a container by Wizards of The Coast. I don't know about who might be winning the battle of brains or hearts, but I don't hesitate to declare I think I've won the battle over who has more balls.
Oh lord, he's pulling the FTB "AT LEAST I'M NOT ANONYMOUS" shit. Sigh. Okay puddinhead, you have the biggest internet balls of all. But okay, you want a real picture of me? Enjoy. If you get up real close to the screen, you can see your face.

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2869/8749 ... 10cd_c.jpg
Ok, since the preview shows this is apparently posting right (though I've been told you can't always trust the preview) here goes:
This was almost the type of conversation we SHOULD have had. Anyway , first I'm going to point out two things where you are factually wrong:
A. My link also linked to newspaper cases which were brought before judges and wherein the perpetrator was punished under the color of law. Therefore there must have been some laws for them to have broken. Now are you going to admit that some of these cases WENT BEFORE A JUDGE or are you going to continue to insist that newspaper articles about spousal abusers being punished in court has nothing to do with laws?
So you're saying that if something wasn't 100% approved of by every single person in the country, that it's a myth?

Because by that definition, there was no societal approval of killing black people for being black by white people, since in some places, such behavior was in fact punished. Again, you're shaping your claim in a ridiculous manner. Societal approval doesn't require a perfect consensus. There was large scale approval of discrimination against black people in this country for centuries, even though there were rather large groups of people against it.

I absolutely concede that such a thing was not universally approved of. As well, we both know that there is a difference between letter of the law and how the law is actually implemented. In theory, segregation required separate but *equal*. As we can see, that last part was widely interpreted.

that's one of the problems people have with your groups by the way. You use really bizarre definitions of things that just don't work, and make no sense when compared with the real world, which again, makes me think you don't care about anything but saying "I won".
Clarence wrote:B. Your own link betrays you. Did you read it?
Here's an exemption:
"The common law rule, accepted at an early date as controlling in this country, was that husband and wife were incompetent as witnesses for or against each other. The rule rested mainly on a desire to foster peace in the family and on a general unwillingness to use testimony of witnesses tempted by strong self-interest to testify falsely. Since a defendant was barred as a witness in his own behalf because of interest, it was quite natural to bar his spouse in view of the prevailing legal fiction that husband and wife were one person. See 1 Coke, Commentary upon Littleton (19th ed. 1832) 6.b. The rule yielded to exceptions in certain types of cases, however. Thus, this Court, in Stein v. Bowman, 13 Pet. 209, while recognizing the "general rule that neither a husband nor wife can be a witness for or against the other," noted that the rule does not apply "where the husband commits an offence against the person of his wife." 13 Pet. at 38 U. S. 221. But the Court emphasized that no exception left spouses free to testify for or against each other merely because they so desired. 13 Pet. at 38 U. S. 223. [Footnote 3] "
Yes, I actually did. Shocking, but true. Since i'm not being absolutist about this, my reading of it is obviously different than yours.
Clarence wrote:If you follow the hyperlinked legal case you will see it is from the 1830's. Apparently back in the 1830's they made an exemption for the wife to testify against a husband if he physically abused her. I was unable to trace back beyond that point, but I will say the court in Stein-v-Bowman seemed to just treat that marital exemption in cases of abuse as if it was already well-known and settled law. Regardless, it's proven it goes back at least that far.

Now are you still going to claim that a woman couldn't go before a judge (despite my first link) and despite this case that is from your own link and say that her husband was abusing her? By the way, "offense against the person" if you are wondering is a legal term that refers to things like assault both physical and sexual.
First of all, a required bona-fide- are you actually a lawyer? because some of the stuff you're getting into makes that a valid question.

Secondly, it doesn't actually "betray" me, because my entire point doesn't rest on spousal privilege. It's just another point that, along with others, undermines your claim that societal approval of violence against women was a myth, and never existed in any form whatsoever. If you're insisting that the only acceptable proof is a law that says, in legalese, yeah, punch them bitches, then we're done here.

However, the claim you're making is that societal approval of violence against women is a complete and total myth and you're really not proving it. Has it been *overstated* by groups to make a point? Of course, and had you said that, I would have agreed with you, because it's true.

But, you're making a specific claim: that there has never been general societal approval of violence against women on any level in any manner. That the *entire* thing is a myth. You make the claim, you have to either prove the entire claim, or restate the claim more narrowly. That's just basic stuff.
Clarence wrote:Now for the rest. You admit to not being a lawyer. So I guess it's understandable you would freak out when I basically pointed out that rape does not require force by noting there is a difference between coercion (which some would extend to "Have sex with me or I will be unhappy", thankfully the law does not go that far) and force. And if I'm a bit of a 'fuckwad' for how I'm not happy with trying to push rape into the domestic violence category (dv almost always involving RELATIONSHIPS and not random women or men on the street -like my own mother- or a one night stand) perhaps thats because I've had years and years of putting up with people increasingly trying to both legally and socially shove more and more things under the 'rape' label. We don't pussyfoot around with rapists. We put them in cages where often *not always of course* they can be subjected to REPEAT (and not necessarily gentle) rapings themselves. Really sucks for the innocent guy or gal, hmm?
the fact that people abuse laws does not change the fact that Rape is in fact violence. The 'gentility' of the physical act doesn't change that. If you want to talk about how rape can be abused and overloaded as a crime, sure, we can do that, but that's a different discussion, and so isn't pertinent here.

As far as what I am going to claim, well, it doesn't seem to matter. Because you're requiring a standard of proof from me that's honestly, stupid. I'm not claiming that every person in the country approved. I saying that when you look at the laws *and the behaviors*, yes, there was.

You seem to want to rely solely on court cases, but already, you're self-selecting data based on cases that were:

1) Reported to the police
2) Police took the case seriously enough to make an arrest
3) the case made it to trial.
4) the defendant was found guilty

at every one of those points, there's a filtering effect, so basically, you have an inverted triangle. What finally makes it to an actual jail sentence is a small, small percentage of what actually happens. That's true today, and it's one of the things that leads people to make bad assumptions about things.

And again, your claim is that all of it is a myth, yet, the fact that a husband could rape his wife, legally, shows that there was in fact, societal support for domestic violence. It is when you start saying "RAPE DOESN'T COUNT" that I start calling you a fuckwit, because it's a fuckwitted point to make. I dated a woman who was raped. She didn't get a single injury from it, not even a bruise. It was the very valid threat of "if you don't let me, I will kill you" that kept her from fighting. But yeah, it was a violence committed against her. The fact he didn't punch her didn't change that.

If you're going to insist that along with a perfect majority, it's only violence if it meets an overly narrow definition, then again, we're done. The world is not that binary.
Clarence wrote:Anyway, thanks for posting that charming picture of you from the waist up. It helps me to get to know you better. :P
it seemed to be a proof of something for you. Unsure what, but sure.

zenbabe
.
.
Posts: 920
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 6:51 pm

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24268

Post by zenbabe »

Re: Retirementus Interruptus
Scented Nectar wrote: Thanks, but I spoke too soon. Red tape is holding shit up and delaying it. Soon though. I'll also get back to more blogging and video overloads. :)
At least it's in the very near future, so pre-grats :)

And btw I just noticed and clicked on and am digging around in your link to Slimepit history. Much appreciated

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24269

Post by welch »

Clarence wrote:
sacha wrote:
Clarence wrote: Anyway, I put my real photo up and leave myself open for shit about my weight, my face, my thinning hair, the clothes I am wearing, etc, while you put up something that looks like it came from the backside of a container by Wizards of The Coast. I don't know about who might be winning the battle of brains or hearts, but I don't hesitate to declare I think I've won the battle over who has more balls.

BHAAAAAAAAAAAA

that is bloody hilarious.

by the way: rule of thumb
Thanks for trying to link to something useful about this. Make fun of me all you want, but at least when responding to arguments of mine make an argument of your own using facts and logic is all I ask.
Anyway, from that link:
So let's clarify once and for all:

English judges apparently took a more permissive attitude toward wife beating prior to 1660, but this attitude had been rejected by the time of Blackstone's commentaries, upon which our modern common law relies.
Wife beating has never been legal in the U.S.
A couple of 19th-century U.S. trial opinions referred to an "ancient law" permitting a husband to beat his wife with a stick not exceeding a thumb's width but rejected said law.
While this alleged rule involved a thumb, it wasn't the origin of "rule of thumb."
Yeah, I think this proves most of the initial points I made against Mr. Wizard, above. Thanks.
Unless we're talking about rape. because rape isn't violence or something.

nippletwister
.
.
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:17 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24270

Post by nippletwister »

Submariner wrote:Twitter yesterday:

twit.JPG

Nice!

Tribble
.
.
Posts: 5102
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24271

Post by Tribble »

ERV wrote:Just found out one of the children killed on Monday was one of 'ours'. Im going to go throw up. Got to take Arnieman to a kids funeral on Saturday to keep some parents/family from killing a WBCer.

Carrier, Myers, hurrdurrdurring about the tornado? All the assholes who threw a tantrum about WBC being at WISC2?

You.

Are.

Scum.
I don't know the "WBC" acronym. I kind of got tired of the lynch-mob mentality that came out of certain corners of the community and mostly stopped hanging out in Atheist circles for quite some time. So some things just kind of fly by...

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24272

Post by welch »

Clarence wrote:
Angry_Drunk wrote:For someone who claims to have lurked here for a year, our new chew-toy Clarence seems oddly ignorant of the goings on. E.g. the provenance of Welch's stupid avatar.
And this is what happens when you post angry and drunk.
I specifically said I never came here every day. Indeed there were months I might visit once, and other months I might be here reading almost daily. Partly depended on what was happening in the skeptical community.

Now I'm being attacked for NOT LURKING ENOUGH. WOW , lol.
I predict my crappy haircut in this 3 year old pic will be next.

you spend a lot of time making claims, then redefining them ever more narrowly.

Apples
.
.
Posts: 2406
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24273

Post by Apples »

Tribble wrote:
ERV wrote:Just found out one of the children killed on Monday was one of 'ours'. Im going to go throw up. Got to take Arnieman to a kids funeral on Saturday to keep some parents/family from killing a WBCer.

Carrier, Myers, hurrdurrdurring about the tornado? All the assholes who threw a tantrum about WBC being at WISC2?

You.

Are.

Scum.
I don't know the "WBC" acronym. I kind of got tired of the lynch-mob mentality that came out of certain corners of the community and mostly stopped hanging out in Atheist circles for quite some time. So some things just kind of fly by...
Westboro Baptist Church

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24274

Post by Scented Nectar »

TheMudbrooker wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:
AndrewV69 wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote: I won't just be mostly retired, I'll be totally, completely, fully, and officially retired. I'm very, very happy and excited about it.
I know the feeling. Congratz!
Ugh, things got delayed. I'm back in limboland of being retired but not officially being retired. Oh well, soon.
You want I should come by and lean on a few people?
Oooh, that's tempting, I'll admit. :think: Unfortunately, probably illegal too. Many thanks for the offer though.

*must resist the urge to give you a list of those who may be holding things up* 8-)

Angry_Drunk
.
.
Posts: 458
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 12:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24275

Post by Angry_Drunk »

Tribble wrote:
ERV wrote:Just found out one of the children killed on Monday was one of 'ours'. Im going to go throw up. Got to take Arnieman to a kids funeral on Saturday to keep some parents/family from killing a WBCer.

Carrier, Myers, hurrdurrdurring about the tornado? All the assholes who threw a tantrum about WBC being at WISC2?

You.

Are.

Scum.
I don't know the "WBC" acronym. I kind of got tired of the lynch-mob mentality that came out of certain corners of the community and mostly stopped hanging out in Atheist circles for quite some time. So some things just kind of fly by...
Westboro Baptist Church and really, hating those vile pieces of shit has fuck-all to do with being an Atheist.

Tribble
.
.
Posts: 5102
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24276

Post by Tribble »

Southern wrote:
Aneris wrote:A new hashtag is "trending" in our little community. Apparently started by RichardReed84, #VaculaMustDenounce. The idea is that per Silverman, Justin Vacula approves of everything he didn't denounce.
I'm waiting for Vacula's input on the Xbox-One fiasco. #VaculaMustDenounce
lol. And SimCity V. I blame Vacula for that!

greylurker
.
.
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 9:02 am
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24277

Post by greylurker »

Just got to the final couple of pages of the last few days.
Abbie, my best wishes for you and yours.
Peter

Gefan
.
.
Posts: 2088
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:55 pm
Location: In a handbasket, apparently.

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24278

Post by Gefan »

Clarence wrote:
Cunning Punt wrote:
Clarence wrote:Ok ...derp...derp...derp. I think I just quoted something I should have put a hyperlink in. I better go get my coffee.
It's alright, I can cut and paste.

Steersman is different. I think the word recursion was invented just for him.
He sounds like a hilarious poster. I take it despite some on here having some negative feelings about him he did bring a bit of humor to the place that even most of his detractors would admit?
"Hilarious" isn't the first word that comes to mind when I think of Steersman. Such humor as he generates tends to come by way of the images generated by the talented among us, like Tigzy, Jan Steen, and the peerless Gumby.
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=10&start=225

Whig
.
.
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 11:39 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24279

Post by Whig »

curriejean wrote:I've been meaning to add to this discussion:
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:
deLurch wrote:
Stretchycheese wrote:Perhaps it might not be a bad idea for dissenting atheist women to set up an alternative secular women's group. The new group could compete with Secular Women, advocating a more egalitarian and humanistic point of view, rather than a dogmatic, gynocentric radical feminist perspective.
The problem there is there is no huge driving force for that as the Humanists pretty much have that covered, minus the whole getting rid of half the population.
Perhaps something more along the lines of a petition signed by women who feel welcome in secularism, or felt welcome until they were told they couldn't, would be more practical. If it was well enough publicised it would take the wind out of a few sails. It needs to be made as clear as possible that no evidence of a concerted war on women in mainstream secularism has ever been provided. It should be made much harder for the perpetuators of that lie to deflect with demands to condemn 4chan style losers on the internet when pressed for evidence of actual real world intimidation. They'd find it much harder to employ those tactics against a sizeable group of women.This business with Silverman is a case in point. He can either demonstrate that secularism is awash with misogyny, or he can't, and demanding condemnation of trolls on sites out of one's control by people of little influence are a blatant dodge.
I agree completely. A group competing with the limiting ideologies of SecularWomen/FtB/Skepchick would stand a chance of becoming an irrelevant splinter. The petition idea sounds much better, as it would keep the focus on ideas and strategies within secularism, rather than encouraging even more divisive personal alliances.

I'd like to contribute to the effort. I'm not well-known in the general sphere of things and I'm not good with publicity, but I hope I can help with writing the petition's intro/purpose statement. I would love to see a group effort in writing it, to make it as representative and inclusive as possible. I'll start on a rough first draft.

Since CFI is planning to meet in June for an official discussion of the negative response to Lindsay's WIS2 opening (CFI twitter, yesterday), I think it would be a good idea to get working on this petition and get it circulating ASAP.

I've started a new thread for the petition:

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=312

I've never made a petition before. If anyone has suggestions for the best petition site to use, as well as how to get this thing shared around once it's completed, I would be very appreciative.

I'm surprised that the board is going to meet over this. Are they just going to slap him on the hand for the DPRK thing?

Gefan
.
.
Posts: 2088
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:55 pm
Location: In a handbasket, apparently.

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24280

Post by Gefan »

Scented Nectar wrote:
Ericb wrote:What kind of -neck is this guy?

http://thetyee.cachefly.net/Opinion/201 ... d300px.jpg
Oh him. He's just our crackhead mayor. He's the one that had a secret video made of him smoking crack. The video makers have put it up for sale for $200,000 dollars. Some are saying that Ford will try and buy it himself. He's not denying anything, which seems odd if he didn't do it.
There is no way someone that fat is on the pipe.

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Retirementus Interruptus

#24281

Post by Scented Nectar »

zenbabe wrote:Re: Retirementus Interruptus
Scented Nectar wrote: Thanks, but I spoke too soon. Red tape is holding shit up and delaying it. Soon though. I'll also get back to more blogging and video overloads. :)
At least it's in the very near future, so pre-grats :)

And btw I just noticed and clicked on and am digging around in your link to Slimepit history. Much appreciated
You're welcome. :) I didn't want that history gone. PZ hid all his ElevatorGate threads, and Abbie took down most of hers due to attempts by PZ, Laden and Svan trying to get her into trouble for bad words or something, with her school, employer, and the company she blogs under. They are a vicious, nasty bunch of low lifes.

Retirementus Interruptus. I like that phrase. I don't like the experience, but I do like the phrase for it. :)

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24282

Post by Scented Nectar »

Gefan wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:
Ericb wrote:What kind of -neck is this guy?

http://thetyee.cachefly.net/Opinion/201 ... d300px.jpg
Oh him. He's just our crackhead mayor. He's the one that had a secret video made of him smoking crack. The video makers have put it up for sale for $200,000 dollars. Some are saying that Ford will try and buy it himself. He's not denying anything, which seems odd if he didn't do it.
There is no way someone that fat is on the pipe.
Maybe he's new at it? This could be like those series of mugshots, the type that are shown for meth-heads, where they start out fairly normal looking and in only a couple of years progress become emaciated and grizzled.

Angry_Drunk
.
.
Posts: 458
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 12:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24283

Post by Angry_Drunk »

Gefan wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:
Ericb wrote:What kind of -neck is this guy?

http://thetyee.cachefly.net/Opinion/201 ... d300px.jpg
Oh him. He's just our crackhead mayor. He's the one that had a secret video made of him smoking crack. The video makers have put it up for sale for $200,000 dollars. Some are saying that Ford will try and buy it himself. He's not denying anything, which seems odd if he didn't do it.
There is no way someone that fat is on the pipe.
Maybe his love of the pipe is only eclipsed by his love of poutine?

JackSkeptic
.
.
Posts: 3222
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Retirementus Interruptus

#24284

Post by JackSkeptic »

Scented Nectar wrote:
zenbabe wrote:Re: Retirementus Interruptus
Scented Nectar wrote: Thanks, but I spoke too soon. Red tape is holding shit up and delaying it. Soon though. I'll also get back to more blogging and video overloads. :)
At least it's in the very near future, so pre-grats :)

And btw I just noticed and clicked on and am digging around in your link to Slimepit history. Much appreciated
You're welcome. :) I didn't want that history gone. PZ hid all his ElevatorGate threads, and Abbie took down most of hers due to attempts by PZ, Laden and Svan trying to get her into trouble for bad words or something, with her school, employer, and the company she blogs under. They are a vicious, nasty bunch of low lifes.

Retirementus Interruptus. I like that phrase. I don't like the experience, but I do like the phrase for it. :)
I find it incredible that they consider themselves 'nice and decent' people.

deLurch
.
.
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:11 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24285

Post by deLurch »

Aneris wrote:A new hashtag is "trending" in our little community. Apparently started by RichardReed84, #VaculaMustDenounce. The idea is that per Silverman, Justin Vacula approves of everything he didn't denounce.
Justin, while you are at it, please denounce candied coconut shavings (that shit is disgusting), non-dairy creamer (who wants soybean oil in their coffee), and those hard plastic sealed clam shell packages that are near impossible to open.

Whig
.
.
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 11:39 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24286

Post by Whig »

On Carrier's blog post about Lindsey he asked how Lindsey could be familiar with A+ and sited a bunch of videos.

I commented that maybe he googled atheism plus, went to the first link which is the forum, and found a thread like the one that was talked about yesterday (http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4765), where FrogSaga made a pretty good stab at listing some complaints while Setar and Ceepollk, as usual, dismissed those points has having already been addressed and that they come from white cisgendered males.


It's been ten hours and I'm still waiting moderation.

cunt
.
.
Posts: 2768
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:06 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24287

Post by cunt »

Aneris wrote:A new hashtag is "trending" in our little community. Apparently started by RichardReed84, #VaculaMustDenounce. The idea is that per Silverman, Justin Vacula approves of everything he didn't denounce.
Meh, I read a bit of that. Silverman asked him if he'd denounce that porno MSPaint that Watson received. Rather than just denouncing it straight away, he umms and ahhs for a bit talking about parody and how he'd laugh if someone sent him that. Yeah, great.

Key factor is, someone asked him his feelings on a subject. They didn't say that he needed to just denounce shit out of the blue.

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24288

Post by Dick Strawkins »

Whig wrote:On Carrier's blog post about Lindsey he asked how Lindsey could be familiar with A+ and sited a bunch of videos.

I commented that maybe he googled atheism plus, went to the first link which is the forum, and found a thread like the one that was talked about yesterday (http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4765), where FrogSaga made a pretty good stab at listing some complaints while Setar and Ceepollk, as usual, dismissed those points has having already been addressed and that they come from white cisgendered males.


It's been ten hours and I'm still waiting moderation.
Thats usual for Carrier. He keeps all comments in moderation until he has time to go through them all at once. You usually get no comments for a few days and then suddenly a whole bunch appear (along with some snarky responses/insults/evasions from Carrier.

Apples
.
.
Posts: 2406
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24289

Post by Apples »

Whig wrote:On Carrier's blog post about Lindsey he asked how Lindsey could be familiar with A+ and sited a bunch of videos.

I commented that maybe he googled atheism plus, went to the first link which is the forum, and found a thread like the one that was talked about yesterday (http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4765), where FrogSaga made a pretty good stab at listing some complaints while Setar and Ceepollk, as usual, dismissed those points has having already been addressed and that they come from white cisgendered males.


It's been ten hours and I'm still waiting moderation.
Indeed. Iguananaut in fact suggested that the proper rebuttal to Frogsaga's fairly comprehensive and damning list was a referral to their list of "Arguments to Avoid" :!: You couldn't possibly make it up.

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24290

Post by Dick Strawkins »

cunt wrote:
Aneris wrote:A new hashtag is "trending" in our little community. Apparently started by RichardReed84, #VaculaMustDenounce. The idea is that per Silverman, Justin Vacula approves of everything he didn't denounce.
Meh, I read a bit of that. Silverman asked him if he'd denounce that porno MSPaint that Watson received. Rather than just denouncing it straight away, he umms and ahhs for a bit talking about parody and how he'd laugh if someone sent him that. Yeah, great.

Key factor is, someone asked him his feelings on a subject. They didn't say that he needed to just denounce shit out of the blue.
I think it's fairer to say there are two parts to this.
First, yes, I agree with your implication that Justin need to be clearer with denouncing actual harrassing behavior (it's mostly the work of trolls, but still harrassing trolls.) And related to that he could criticise or distance himself some of the stuff that AVFM do - the hit list for example, and Elams stance towards jury duty in a rape trial, and the recent "women enjoy rape" 'satirical' article.

Second, Silvermans tactic of calling Vacula to 'denounce bad stuff done by people percieved to be on his side' is both incredibly vague, but also rather leading and disengenuous - if he denounces trolling behavior then does that mean the trolls are on his side?
That is the reason for the hashtag humor.

nippletwister
.
.
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:17 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24291

Post by nippletwister »

Submariner wrote:
nippletwister wrote:
Fair enough, and sorry about the "tits" crack. And I don't want to over-interpret, but you do read a bit angry IMO. That could just be from the interaction with Welch, it can do that to people.

Peace.
Hey, I like welch.

Oh, I like Welch just fine, I find him entertaining and often right about things he rants on(though I have a few areas of disagreement as well). But not everyone has a good reaction.

zenbabe
.
.
Posts: 920
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 6:51 pm

Re: Retirementus Interruptus

#24292

Post by zenbabe »

Jack wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:
zenbabe wrote:Re: Retirementus Interruptus
Scented Nectar wrote: Thanks, but I spoke too soon. Red tape is holding shit up and delaying it. Soon though. I'll also get back to more blogging and video overloads. :)
At least it's in the very near future, so pre-grats :)

And btw I just noticed and clicked on and am digging around in your link to Slimepit history. Much appreciated
You're welcome. :) I didn't want that history gone. PZ hid all his ElevatorGate threads, and Abbie took down most of hers due to attempts by PZ, Laden and Svan trying to get her into trouble for bad words or something, with her school, employer, and the company she blogs under. They are a vicious, nasty bunch of low lifes.

Retirementus Interruptus. I like that phrase. I don't like the experience, but I do like the phrase for it. :)
I find it incredible that they consider themselves 'nice and decent' people.
Glad you could get a grin about what's surely a disappointment, Nectar :)

And yes, as I learn I'm repeatedly taken aback by their claims of being 'nice and decent', yet they are the ones who truly attack. And by "truly" attack I mean going after people in their real lives and their real jobs. I thought at first that maybe Abbie's experience was a unique one but as it turns out it's their go-to response toward disagreement. There's JV losing a job before he could even actually start it, thanks to them, as well as the attempt to ban/shun him from WIS. And Lindsay's speech contained a mildly worded rebuke, which they felt -keenly-, and their response is to announce that he doesn't deserve his job and are working to get him fired. Let alone the (kinda hilarious, but still) attempt to "out" Franc. And if I understand it right, thunderf00t. Also Mykeru? Fuzzy about that one yet. And now Justicar? I know there are others. Harriet Hall? Because she wore a t-shirt which said she felt safe? DJ Goethe? Not sure what that one is yet. Pretty sure though I'm leaving people out.

Is there anyone associated here who has ever done that?

I'd feel perfectly safe alone in an elevator with JV, but I would not feel safe with them if they knew my real name. "Vicious" is a good descriptor of what I'm reading.

What does Silverman think is going to happen to him if he changes his opinion after going on Justin's show? He might well feel he -can't- change his mind.

I am babbling. But there's doesn't appear to be anything "free" about thinking, with them.

Dave
.
.
Posts: 1975
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 6:03 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24293

Post by Dave »

Oh and on the whole marital rape thing, from Schlosser, Criminal Laws of NJ (published in 1970!!!):
[quote]Thus, while a husband cannot rape his wife, because at marriage she gives an irrevocable consent to the sexual act . . .[\quote]

Also the ability of a wife to testify against her husband was still not sufficiently settled law in 1920 that State v. Marriner, 93, N.J.L. 273 made it all the way to the NJ State Sup Ct. (In a case of Atrocious Assault and Battery) Fortunately, after winding its way through our courts, the right result was found.

Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5543
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24294

Post by Gumby »

JayTeeAitch wrote:Anyone heard anything from Ape+Lust? I see he hasn't posted for 3 months.

For any newcomers, here's his masterpiece:

http://i.imgur.com/lODAS.jpg
That's my all time favorite shop here.

No idea what happened to him. We corresponded by PM and he was a great help teaching me the basics of image manipulation. Then he just vanished. Hope he's well, he's a really decent guy.

cunt
.
.
Posts: 2768
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:06 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24295

Post by cunt »

Dick Strawkins wrote:
cunt wrote:
Aneris wrote:A new hashtag is "trending" in our little community. Apparently started by RichardReed84, #VaculaMustDenounce. The idea is that per Silverman, Justin Vacula approves of everything he didn't denounce.
Meh, I read a bit of that. Silverman asked him if he'd denounce that porno MSPaint that Watson received. Rather than just denouncing it straight away, he umms and ahhs for a bit talking about parody and how he'd laugh if someone sent him that. Yeah, great.

Key factor is, someone asked him his feelings on a subject. They didn't say that he needed to just denounce shit out of the blue.
I think it's fairer to say there are two parts to this.
First, yes, I agree with your implication that Justin need to be clearer with denouncing actual harrassing behavior (it's mostly the work of trolls, but still harrassing trolls.) And related to that he could criticise or distance himself some of the stuff that AVFM do - the hit list for example, and Elams stance towards jury duty in a rape trial, and the recent "women enjoy rape" 'satirical' article.

Second, Silvermans tactic of calling Vacula to 'denounce bad stuff done by people percieved to be on his side' is both incredibly vague, but also rather leading and disengenuous - if he denounces trolling behavior then does that mean the trolls are on his side?
That is the reason for the hashtag humor.
From what i've seen Silverman was quite specific.

Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5543
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24296

Post by Gumby »

bovarchist wrote:
Gumby wrote:
Clarence wrote:
AndrewV69 wrote:Looks like I am going to have to use the "ignore" function if this keeps up ...
Oh, my! Why whomever could you be ignoring and please pray tell why you felt the Need to Announce This Important Message instead, of, you know, just quietly doing it? I mean, I don't know about some of these guys but I'll listen to your complaint. However this sort of thing means I guess we can expect a big Rage Flounce out of you at some point in the future?
Settle down, Francis.
If that's a Stripes reference, then it's "lighten up, Francis". :lol:

0OnpkDWbeJs
I've been making that mistake for years :oops:

windy
.
.
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:41 am
Location: Tom of Finland-land

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24297

Post by windy »

cunt wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote: I think it's fairer to say there are two parts to this.
First, yes, I agree with your implication that Justin need to be clearer with denouncing actual harrassing behavior (it's mostly the work of trolls, but still harrassing trolls.) And related to that he could criticise or distance himself some of the stuff that AVFM do - the hit list for example, and Elams stance towards jury duty in a rape trial, and the recent "women enjoy rape" 'satirical' article.

Second, Silvermans tactic of calling Vacula to 'denounce bad stuff done by people percieved to be on his side' is both incredibly vague, but also rather leading and disengenuous - if he denounces trolling behavior then does that mean the trolls are on his side?
That is the reason for the hashtag humor.
From what i've seen Silverman was quite specific.
Apart from "threats of violence" that doesn't sound all that specific.

Tribble
.
.
Posts: 5102
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24298

Post by Tribble »

[quote="Jack]
I am as certain as I can be the board was sounded out first. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows the vitriol and unsophisticated lies he would face. I see no evidence he won't have known that and in fact came preprepared with the outline of his responses. The clowns are very predictable because they are so unsubtle and binary. Either they love you or they hate you and that is based solely on whether you disagree with them in anything (even minor) or 100% support them. They don't do nuance or proportional responses. They only care about winning at any cost and they are incapable of doing that using reason and logic as their ideas simply do not stack up the way they want them to.

I suspect it would be trivial for any of us to ghost write a response such as provided by Carrier. It's the same old over the top emotive, irrational and unevidenced rubbish. The pseudo intellectual style is just a smoke screen for the gullible.[/quote]


It's like they're a coven of borderlines... You are the best of people, you are the worst of people... And they exhibit little, if any, ability to work with others on common interests and get beyond differences.

Never mind Lindsay from a few days ago. Silverman, who was the best of people stringing out Vacula yesterday is already being trashed as the worst of people for accepting the interview request after Vacula's silly 'condemnation' post. From Hero to Zero in less than 24 hours.

bovarchist
.
.
Posts: 1925
Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:07 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24299

Post by bovarchist »

Dave wrote:Oh and on the whole marital rape thing, from Schlosser, Criminal Laws of NJ (published in 1970!!!):
Thus, while a husband cannot rape his wife, because at marriage she gives an irrevocable consent to the sexual act . . .[\quote]

Also the ability of a wife to testify against her husband was still not sufficiently settled law in 1920 that State v. Marriner, 93, N.J.L. 273 made it all the way to the NJ State Sup Ct. (In a case of Atrocious Assault and Battery) Fortunately, after winding its way through our courts, the right result was found.
Funny how that word 'while' suggests that there was an important caveat to follow, doesn't it? Sorry, not taking sides, I just find myself wondering what got left out.

Pitchguest
.
.
Posts: 4024
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:44 pm

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#24300

Post by Pitchguest »

cunt wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:
cunt wrote:
Aneris wrote:A new hashtag is "trending" in our little community. Apparently started by RichardReed84, #VaculaMustDenounce. The idea is that per Silverman, Justin Vacula approves of everything he didn't denounce.
Meh, I read a bit of that. Silverman asked him if he'd denounce that porno MSPaint that Watson received. Rather than just denouncing it straight away, he umms and ahhs for a bit talking about parody and how he'd laugh if someone sent him that. Yeah, great.

Key factor is, someone asked him his feelings on a subject. They didn't say that he needed to just denounce shit out of the blue.
I think it's fairer to say there are two parts to this.
First, yes, I agree with your implication that Justin need to be clearer with denouncing actual harrassing behavior (it's mostly the work of trolls, but still harrassing trolls.) And related to that he could criticise or distance himself some of the stuff that AVFM do - the hit list for example, and Elams stance towards jury duty in a rape trial, and the recent "women enjoy rape" 'satirical' article.

Second, Silvermans tactic of calling Vacula to 'denounce bad stuff done by people percieved to be on his side' is both incredibly vague, but also rather leading and disengenuous - if he denounces trolling behavior then does that mean the trolls are on his side?
That is the reason for the hashtag humor.
From what i've seen Silverman was quite specific.
You mean like this one?

Locked