Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I call bullshit on the comment above that I've made bold. Even in the social services wasteland that is my country, there are organizations that will give psychiatric help and prorate the costs so you can afford it. Either Setar has put no effort into finding one of these places or he simply wants everything for free.

Sorry for serial-posting, still catching up.

Could it be possible that Setar"s issues prevent him from seeking one of those places? Because if that's the case, I'd be more than happy to help him. I know health issues can be a real bummer, whether physiologic or psychologic. Setar, if you read and need a hand, just ask. Honest offer.

[Scented Nectar]

Scented Nectar, your description of services provided by Canadian Health Insurance is both simplistic and inaccurate in that you seem to either ignore, or be unaware, that the plan is provincial, not federal, and each province offers different servies. In BC, an individual is required to sign on to the HIBC plan, and there is a variable monthly charge depending on several factors including family size (if applicable), and income level. Note that routine doctor's visits are not free for anything not considered an immediate medical neccesity.

The following services are provided, or not, dependent on specific circumstances, and there is often a great challenge in getting dotors to refer one to a required professional:

Provided:

- Medically-required services of a physician, or of a specialist (such as a surgeon, anaesthetist or psychiatrist -- not a counsellor or psychologist) when referred by a physician.
- Maternity care by a physician, or by a specialist when referred by a physician.
- Diagnostic x-ray and laboratory services when ordered by a physician, podiatrist, dental surgeon or oral surgeon.
- Dental and oral surgery when medically required to be performed in a hospital surgical podiatry.

Not Provided:

- Routine physical examinations performed for reasons other than medical necessity. **Note: Patients may be charged an additional amount if the practitioner’s fee is higher than the amount payable by MSP.
- Medical examinations, certificates or tests required for life insurance, a driver’s licence, school, immigration, employment, etc..
- Cosmetic surgery for the alteration of appearance.
- Restorative or other dental work performed in a dental office.
- Eyeglasses, hearing aids, and other equipment or appliances.
- The services of counsellors or psychologists.
- Routine eye examinations for beneficiaries between the ages of 19 and 64.
- Chiropractic, physiotherapy, naturopathy, massage therapy, acupuncture, and non-surgical podiatry services for persons not receiving premium assistance.

I'm not familiar with provincial differences, but, getting a referral to a specialist is the normal way to do it here too. Unless you have a really weird doctor, they are very willing to send people to a specialist, UNLESS they are sure that the patient does not need that type of specialist. If anything, they oversend people to specialists as a just in case thing. If any patient was concerned that they have mental problems, a regular general practitioner is almost certainly going to send the patient for a mental check up with a psychiatrist. If however, they feel the patient only has some very mild depression or is temporarily or situationally down in the dumps a bit, they usually try the patient out on some SSRI's first, but I doubt any doctor (unless they are also scientologists) would refuse a psych referral to a patient who claims suicidal ideation as Setar says he had. And even if his GP refused, then his suicide visit to the hospital would have gotten him onto one of the hospital psychiatrist's patient lists. The hospital itself would do the referral. I can't imagine he wasn't offered further help after his hospital suicide stay.

As for "chiropractic, physiotherapy, naturopathy, massage therapy, acupuncture, and non-surgical podiatry services", those quack practices shouldn't be covered under any circumstances. I'd even go so far as to say they should be illegal if they are making medical claims. A 'reflexologist' divining what illnesses you have and 'curing' them by foot rubs, should not be paid for out of public health tax money.

Speaking of 'massage therapy', I once long ago, when I believed some of the woo pseudomedicine out there, went to a "rolfer". Their claim was that they could fix bad posture. I have a slightly S shaped curved spine (possibly "lordosis", but NOT the sexual definition, hahah, well maybe except at certain times!) I'm referring to the definition that means a permanently curved spine condition, sticking forward a bit at gut level, and backwards a bit at tit level.

Anyways, I went for a few sessions. It did nothing for my spinal curve however, but I did enjoy the deep massage (not painful as some perceive it). So, anyways, the woman doing it was very disappointed in me. You see, it turns out that Rolfers believe that their massage is supposed to bring up deep rooted fears and bad memories, and by bringing those up, they'd be magically cured. I had no fears or bad memories. In fact, I was quite calm and happy, enjoying the massage. I stopped going though, due in half to her wooey expectations of a mental breakdown/breakthrough, as well as it wasn't doing anything for my posture, so except for the brief, but nice feeling of having just had a deep massage, there was no reason to keep going for those.

[John Brown]

I have two daughters. I teach them about harm reduction all the time. I may do this by asking them to point in the direction of the car if we are out and about (teaches them situational awareness). I may remind them to wear sensible shoes for the occasion (be prepared for predictable eventualities). And, I tell them to trust their fear instinct. If something seems wrong to them, "listen" to that fear, but don't let it rule you. Pay attention to people around you when in public. You don't have to be obvious about it, but glance around every now and then and get your bearings.

So if I understand the criticism correctly, if you tell your daughters to not pass out drunk at midnight while wearing a miniskirt in the heart of downtown, you're a victim blamer. I was trying to come up with some snarky, rapey joke comment for this idea, but I'm just to disgusted by the lack of personal responsibility.

Because, there really are an alarming number of people out there who honestly believe that personal responsibility should never, ever enter into the conversation. They are absolutely incapable of nuanced thought. If you put your money laden wallet down in a public place and walk away from it and it gets stolen, the person who is guilty for that is the thief, not the irresponsible person. But, that does not shield you from any resulting criticism. You know, like, "Dude, why the fuck did you leave your wallet out like that?"

People want to equate "you shouldn't have worn that slutty skirt, you asked for it," (which is an abhorrent, stupid, vile and evil thing to say) with "Be aware of your surroundings. Don't drink to excess. Have a friend with you if you're unfamiliar with the location or the people."

That advice is equally applicable to both men and women. To say that is "victim blaming," is intellectual surrender. It's also incredibly dangerous as it teaches people that they have no personal responsibility. Everything in the world will be better if we stopped focusing on harm reduction and focused instead on "teaching men not to rape."

When, if you think about it, is pretty much like saying, "You know, we *could* work on this whole civil rights thing, but I think a better idea is to teach all white people not to lynch black people just in case they may decide to join the KKK at some point in the future."

[Scented Nectar]

Here's a video about it.

[youtube]t1gXFD4CAT4[/youtube]

If you go to the video's youtube page, , underneath in the "about" section (click 'show more'), there are quite a few links about the pledge, including a wiki page.

Wowzers! I just subbed to her channel. Thanks for the link.

You're welcome. Here's a few of the best sexworkers' rights channels on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Divinity33372
http://www.youtube.com/user/FeministWhore
http://www.youtube.com/user/jordanowen42

All three have in past videos, shown the feminist/fundie connections in regard to sex work legislation, as well as info on the Pledge and the deceptive definition of 'trafficking', which feminists (and their lucrative 'rescue industries') constantly misrepresent to make their numbers look better.

[EdwardGemmer]

New video I uploaded in response to Zvan:

"Why do some feminists online experience a great deal of negative feedback while others do not? I hypothesize that the way they present themselves online has something to do with it. Magical 'harassment faeries' don't just appear out of nowhere."

[youtube]64GYusPicPc[/youtube]

You two just need to get a room and work out some excess energy.

That will be the most awesome hate sex ever.

We should start a petition to make this happen.

[Scented Nectar]

There's a certan A plusser who has a particular aversion to capitalising the first letter in his sentences. Just as he has a particular aversion to being a useful member of society.

Who does that? I don't look at A+ often enough to know.

I think he finds rampant capitalisation oppressive:

http://setarelven.tumblr.com/

Probably the result of some horribly oppressive English teacher trying to tell him what to do. Poor Setar!

A Pharyngula baboon named Ichthyic does it too (he's the one who lied that he had been banned from Why Evolution is True, when in reality he flounced because he didn't like Jerry Coyne's commenting policy).

They're not big on honesty, are they? In fact, they seem downright allergic to it. :?

[ReneeHendricks]

Ha-haaa! Twitter account suspended again!

How did that happen?

Most likely the result of getting re-blocked by the block bot owing to the recent 'update' which required the users to, er, re-block. I wrote something here at the time about it, and did wonder if it would result in new suspensions. Tis probable that my wonderings were correct...

As they *STUPIDLY AND WITHOUT ANY FUCKING REASON* have my work account on that block list, if I find it suspended, asses will be burned. Just sayin'.

FTR - I bitched about this to Oolon and he very quickly removed my work account. He had thought it was a parody created by Dawn Gordon. So, I give him thanks and kudos for reacting quickly.

[Scented Nectar]

Shit People Say to the Pro-Porn Lobby:

[youtube]m3ULPT9cz-s[/youtube]

[Guest]

since it came up

https://www.readmatter.com/a/do-no-harm/

[Gumby]

FTR - I bitched about this to Oolon and he very quickly removed my work account. He had thought it was a parody created by Dawn Gordon. So, I give him thanks and kudos for reacting quickly.

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... f57997.jpg

[John Brown]

Shit People Say to the Pro-Porn Lobby:

[youtube]m3ULPT9cz-s[/youtube]

I love his stuff.

I find it distressing that there is such a thing as a pro-porn lobby. I would find it equally distressing if there were a pro-free speech lobby or a pro-eating candy lobby. Some issues are really not up for a popular vote.

[Scented Nectar]

Here is an excellent blog regarding sex work and the laws in various countries. She disputes incorrect claims/numbers by feminists and religious nutters. She revealed that the Swedish anti-sexworker laws (the ones that SAY prostitution is legal, but who made it illegal for them to have customers) are not in fact, based on any science whatsoever, just lies about numbers and other 'evidence'.

http://www.lauraagustin.com/

[LMU]

Shit People Say to the Pro-Porn Lobby:

[youtube]m3ULPT9cz-s[/youtube]

"I would like to engage in a non-confrontational discussion about why you think it's okay to rape women." :lol:

[Scented Nectar]

Here are a few articles by Laura Agustin:

http://www.lauraagustin.com/swedish-rep ... ostitution

http://www.lauraagustin.com/evidence-th ... or-skarhed

[Scented Nectar]

Shit People Say to the Pro-Porn Lobby:

[youtube]m3ULPT9cz-s[/youtube]

"I would like to engage in a non-confrontational discussion about why you think it's okay to rape women." :lol:

Yeah, no loaded questions there, eh? :lol:

[Southern]

Ha-haaa! Twitter account suspended again!

How did that happen?

Most likely the result of getting re-blocked by the block bot owing to the recent 'update' which required the users to, er, re-block. I wrote something here at the time about it, and did wonder if it would result in new suspensions. Tis probable that my wonderings were correct...

As they *STUPIDLY AND WITHOUT ANY FUCKING REASON* have my work account on that block list, if I find it suspended, asses will be burned. Just sayin'.

FTR - I bitched about this to Oolon and he very quickly removed my work account. He had thought it was a parody created by Dawn Gordon. So, I give him thanks and kudos for reacting quickly.

But... but... the Slymers are EEEVIL! How can you say a good thing about Oolon?

Perhaps it's because... when people do decent things, we can recognize them as being decent?

Nah, I'm sure it is someone from A+ hacking your account to write something positive about him.

[ReneeHendricks]

I have two daughters. I teach them about harm reduction all the time. I may do this by asking them to point in the direction of the car if we are out and about (teaches them situational awareness). I may remind them to wear sensible shoes for the occasion (be prepared for predictable eventualities). And, I tell them to trust their fear instinct. If something seems wrong to them, "listen" to that fear, but don't let it rule you. Pay attention to people around you when in public. You don't have to be obvious about it, but glance around every now and then and get your bearings.

So if I understand the criticism correctly, if you tell your daughters to not pass out drunk at midnight while wearing a miniskirt in the heart of downtown, you're a victim blamer. I was trying to come up with some snarky, rapey joke comment for this idea, but I'm just to disgusted by the lack of personal responsibility.

*Thank you!* Personal responsibility. It's something many are trying to squash and it drives me batty!

[Gefan]

There's a certan A plusser who has a particular aversion to capitalising the first letter in his sentences. Just as he has a particular aversion to being a useful member of society.

Who does that? I don't look at A+ often enough to know.

I think he finds rampant capitalisation oppressive:

http://setarelven.tumblr.com/

Probably the result of some horribly oppressive English teacher trying to tell him what to do. Poor Setar!

A Pharyngula baboon named Ichthyic does it too (he's the one who lied that he had been banned from Why Evolution is True, when in reality he flounced because he didn't like Jerry Coyne's commenting policy).

Is it possible they haven't figured out that capitalisation and capitalism are not the same thing?

[Dick Strawkins]

Is it possible they haven't figured out that capitalisation and capitalism are not the same thing?

Damned comma-unists! :evil:

[Southern]

Here is an excellent blog regarding sex work and the laws in various countries. She disputes incorrect claims/numbers by feminists and religious nutters. She revealed that the Swedish anti-sexworker laws (the ones that SAY prostitution is legal, but who made it illegal for them to have customers) are not in fact, based on any science whatsoever, just lies about numbers and other 'evidence'.

http://www.lauraagustin.com/

I understand the "buying isn't illegal, selling is" logic (in regards to drugs, where the buyer may be an addict), but "selling isn't illegal, buying is" baffles me. How that even begin to make sense?

[Dick Strawkins]

Here is an excellent blog regarding sex work and the laws in various countries. She disputes incorrect claims/numbers by feminists and religious nutters. She revealed that the Swedish anti-sexworker laws (the ones that SAY prostitution is legal, but who made it illegal for them to have customers) are not in fact, based on any science whatsoever, just lies about numbers and other 'evidence'.

http://www.lauraagustin.com/

I understand the "buying isn't illegal, selling is" logic (in regards to drugs, where the buyer may be an addict), but "selling isn't illegal, buying is" baffles me. How that even begin to make sense?

The logic behind these laws is the assumption that every female sex worker is forced into the job and nobody does this work by choice.
She is being trafficked against her will and thus is not ultimately responsible for any transaction that occurs.
The person responsible is the client, who, by paying for sex, is aiding in the illegal trafficking and forced sex/rape of women.

Therefore the law makes it a crime for the client to pay for the services of a sex worker.
The sex worker herself is held to be blameless.

It makes perfect sense if you are an anti sex-work gender feminist.

[Submariner]

Here is an excellent blog regarding sex work and the laws in various countries. She disputes incorrect claims/numbers by feminists and religious nutters. She revealed that the Swedish anti-sexworker laws (the ones that SAY prostitution is legal, but who made it illegal for them to have customers) are not in fact, based on any science whatsoever, just lies about numbers and other 'evidence'.

http://www.lauraagustin.com/

I understand the "buying isn't illegal, selling is" logic (in regards to drugs, where the buyer may be an addict), but "selling isn't illegal, buying is" baffles me. How that even begin to make sense?

The logic behind these laws is the assumption that every female sex worker is forced into the job and nobody does this work by choice.
She is being trafficked against her will and thus is not ultimately responsible for any transaction that occurs.
The person responsible is the client, who, by paying for sex, is aiding in the illegal trafficking and forced sex/rape of women.

Therefore the law makes it a crime for the client to pay for the services of a sex worker.
The sex worker herself is held to be blameless.

It makes perfect sense if you are an anti sex-work gender feminist.

Does it work that way when the sex workers are gigolos, too???

[bhoytony]

Not my best work but meh, you misogynist cunts don't deserve better:

[youtube]vcf41GJjRUM[/youtube]

Who's the old guy in all of Submariner's videos?

That's his dad isn't it?

[welch]

So every school day, in every school and every town hall in the country, there's a multi-hour presentation that the kids have to attend about RadFem. No math. no history, no English, no nothing. Just six hours of RadFem a day.

Wow. Because none of that happened the ENTIRE TIME MY SON WAS IN SCHOOL. In three states.

I guess Massachusetts, Missouri and FL are centers of enlightenment?

Well, Massachusetts is....

Hey welch, you cunt, I'm talking about "under god".

Engaging with you is like engaging with religious nutters and FTBers.

And, btw, Florida drinking water is terrible. And they'll never make good pizza or bagels because of it.

OMG, THEY HAVE "UNDER GOD" IN A COMPLETELY OPTIONAL PLEDGE. RUUNNNNNNNN! RUNNNNNNNN AWAAAAAYYYY!

Fuck me running, Atheists are some of the stupidest twats on the planet about picking battles, and utterly, utterly blind to why people think of them as overemotional irrational idiots.

as far as the rest, who fucking cares, but if it means you never move here, I'm personally going to route sewage into the fucking water in Tallahassee. Jesus, the last thing we need is yet another overemotional dipshit crying about boogeymen.

[Scented Nectar]

Here is an excellent blog regarding sex work and the laws in various countries. She disputes incorrect claims/numbers by feminists and religious nutters. She revealed that the Swedish anti-sexworker laws (the ones that SAY prostitution is legal, but who made it illegal for them to have customers) are not in fact, based on any science whatsoever, just lies about numbers and other 'evidence'.

http://www.lauraagustin.com/

I understand the "buying isn't illegal, selling is" logic (in regards to drugs, where the buyer may be an addict), but "selling isn't illegal, buying is" baffles me. How that even begin to make sense?

It doesn't make sense at all. I really like how Agustin exposes these things, and counters the wild claims with valid info and numbers.

The Swedish feminists are convinced that all sex workers are victims, even the ones who own their own businesses, all of their own volition, and who are doing fine - not victims at all. Except victims of the feminists who harass sex workers' customers, and in some cases just force prostitution even more underground (else how are they going to get customers?) and therefore less safe.

So, considering them as victims, they think by reducing demand (which outlawing customers is supposed to magically do) they are gently guiding these 'misguided' women (they don't seem to give a shit about male or trans sex workers) into more decent jobs, like you know, dishwashers, cleaning ladies, low paid secretaries.

They do not allow AT ALL for the prostitute's claims of self agency or that s/he's working on her/his own volition.

Here's a comparative thingy I did a couple years ago...

[youtube]UuyVlZpf5WQ[/youtube]

[welch]

I have two daughters. I teach them about harm reduction all the time. I may do this by asking them to point in the direction of the car if we are out and about (teaches them situational awareness). I may remind them to wear sensible shoes for the occasion (be prepared for predictable eventualities). And, I tell them to trust their fear instinct. If something seems wrong to them, "listen" to that fear, but don't let it rule you. Pay attention to people around you when in public. You don't have to be obvious about it, but glance around every now and then and get your bearings.

So if I understand the criticism correctly, if you tell your daughters to not pass out drunk at midnight while wearing a miniskirt in the heart of downtown, you're a victim blamer. I was trying to come up with some snarky, rapey joke comment for this idea, but I'm just to disgusted by the lack of personal responsibility.

Yep, you pretty much got it.

Because men never need to care about their surroundings. It's all honey and blowjobs for us, nary a threat of violence to be found.

[Remick]

I think he finds rampant capitalisation oppressive:

http://setarelven.tumblr.com/

Probably the result of some horribly oppressive English teacher trying to tell him what to do. Poor Setar!

A Pharyngula baboon named Ichthyic does it too (he's the one who lied that he had been banned from Why Evolution is True, when in reality he flounced because he didn't like Jerry Coyne's commenting policy).

Is it possible they haven't figured out that capitalisation and capitalism are not the same thing?

Setar refuses to even participate in discussions about "the economy" because "the economy" is made up of real people, with real feelings, and real Skyrim withdrawls.

[bhoytony]

No, Greta Christina, I will not join in your humourless condemnation of Seth McFarlane to satisfy your attention seeking. Instead of wasting your money on the TV license that was clearly wrought from you watching the horrible Oscar performance you were forced to sit through, that money could have gone to another pair of Fluevogs. I weep for your sake.

TV license?

[Scented Nectar]

Here is an excellent blog regarding sex work and the laws in various countries. She disputes incorrect claims/numbers by feminists and religious nutters. She revealed that the Swedish anti-sexworker laws (the ones that SAY prostitution is legal, but who made it illegal for them to have customers) are not in fact, based on any science whatsoever, just lies about numbers and other 'evidence'.

http://www.lauraagustin.com/

I understand the "buying isn't illegal, selling is" logic (in regards to drugs, where the buyer may be an addict), but "selling isn't illegal, buying is" baffles me. How that even begin to make sense?

The logic behind these laws is the assumption that every female sex worker is forced into the job and nobody does this work by choice.
She is being trafficked against her will and thus is not ultimately responsible for any transaction that occurs.
The person responsible is the client, who, by paying for sex, is aiding in the illegal trafficking and forced sex/rape of women.

Therefore the law makes it a crime for the client to pay for the services of a sex worker.
The sex worker herself is held to be blameless.

It makes perfect sense if you are an anti sex-work gender feminist.

What they don't acknowledge is that they are really punishing the sex workers, by making it illegal for them to have customers. "We'll save you! We need to take away your income though. It's for your own good."

[Remick]

So every school day, in every school and every town hall in the country, there's a multi-hour presentation that the kids have to attend about RadFem. No math. no history, no English, no nothing. Just six hours of RadFem a day.

Wow. Because none of that happened the ENTIRE TIME MY SON WAS IN SCHOOL. In three states.

I guess Massachusetts, Missouri and FL are centers of enlightenment?

Well, Massachusetts is....

Hey welch, you cunt, I'm talking about "under god".

Engaging with you is like engaging with religious nutters and FTBers.

And, btw, Florida drinking water is terrible. And they'll never make good pizza or bagels because of it.

OMG, THEY HAVE "UNDER GOD" IN A COMPLETELY OPTIONAL PLEDGE. RUUNNNNNNNN! RUNNNNNNNN AWAAAAAYYYY!

Fuck me running, Atheists are some of the stupidest twats on the planet about picking battles, and utterly, utterly blind to why people think of them as overemotional irrational idiots.

as far as the rest, who fucking cares, but if it means you never move here, I'm personally going to route sewage into the fucking water in Tallahassee. Jesus, the last thing we need is yet another overemotional dipshit crying about boogeymen.

This.

Also, the only reason the republican party is the way it is right now, is that all the different christian denominations got scared enough to band together, rather than fight each other, turning them into a powerful lobby. You think a Mormon could have support from the "Christian Right" 25-30 years ago?

Debaser, you are telling me you can't talk to your child when he/she asks you about the god he heard about in the pledge? Or sees in our money? Or heard in the Innaugural address? Or hears every athlete/musician thank for making them so awesome?

[Jonathan]

No, Greta Christina, I will not join in your humourless condemnation of Seth McFarlane to satisfy your attention seeking. Instead of wasting your money on the TV license that was clearly wrought from you watching the horrible Oscar performance you were forced to sit through, that money could have gone to another pair of Fluevogs. I weep for your sake.

TV license?

People in Britain have to pay an annual tv licence fee. Helps fund the BBC. Are there licences for Americans? I hadn't thought so.

[Pitchguest]

No, Greta Christina, I will not join in your humourless condemnation of Seth McFarlane to satisfy your attention seeking. Instead of wasting your money on the TV license that was clearly wrought from you watching the horrible Oscar performance you were forced to sit through, that money could have gone to another pair of Fluevogs. I weep for your sake.

TV license?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence

But it seems licensing in the United States is different. Oops. >_>

[Michael J]

Where did PZ get the impression that straight-up denial of well-documented reality is an effective debating technique? He's hanging out with EllenBeth Wacks too much:

Hmmm. I think Harris’s reputation as an illiberal advocate for atrocious policies long preceded any of my criticisms of his positions, and I suspect that the commenters here could make a far better indictment of Harris than he can a defense.

In other words: feed him to the piranhas. But Peezus has no beef with Harris, no sir.

Like all Bullies PZ is a coward at heart and backs down when faced with reality.

[bhoytony]

People in Britain have to pay an annual tv licence fee. Helps fund the BBC. Are there licences for Americans? I hadn't thought so.

I know what a telly licence is. I was just making the point that Greetin' Cristina is a Septic and I don't think the detector vans have big enough petrol tanks to reach San Francisco.

[Ericb]

No, Greta Christina, I will not join in your humourless condemnation of Seth McFarlane to satisfy your attention seeking. Instead of wasting your money on the TV license that was clearly wrought from you watching the horrible Oscar performance you were forced to sit through, that money could have gone to another pair of Fluevogs. I weep for your sake.

TV license?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence

But it seems licensing in the United States is different. Oops. >_>

It actually makes your point stronger. The Oscars are on broadcast TV which is free (unless you get it on cable but in that case you are paying for the cable and all the additional channels its provides and not for anything on broadcast television).

[Lsuoma]

Hahahhahahahahahahahhaahhahahahahahahahahahahahh!

I needed that! :lol:

I'll refrain however, from showing people where PZ has his personal home addy and phone listed publicly on the internet, and how much his house was sold for in May 2003. It's location shows why he was so pissed off at the church music playing in the graveyard a couple years ago. He lives very close to it. I'd have been pissed off too. I'll refrain from details though, because well, doxxing, and what if someone actually ordered a truckload of straw delivered to him? I don't want to be blamed for that! It sure would be funny though.

Must. Hold. Back.

[LadyChillax]

That's his dad isn't it?

Ageism running rampant in the atheist/skeptic community! We need a conference for the age-challenged folks to discuss the hardships of being old atheists. What to do when the other inmates at the retirement home sing hymns after dinner? Throw jello cups at them or get up and stagger out as quickly as your walker will allow?

[Ericb]

Hahahhahahahahahahahhaahhahahahahahahahahahahahh!

I needed that! :lol:

I'll refrain however, from showing people where PZ has his personal home addy and phone listed publicly on the internet, and how much his house was sold for in May 2003. It's location shows why he was so pissed off at the church music playing in the graveyard a couple years ago. He lives very close to it. I'd have been pissed off too. I'll refrain from details though, because well, doxxing, and what if someone actually ordered a truckload of straw delivered to him? I don't want to be blamed for that! It sure would be funny though.

Must. Hold. Back.

http://www.hayexchange.com/mn.php

[Submariner]

That's his dad isn't it?

Ageism running rampant in the atheist/skeptic community! We need a conference for the age-challenged folks to discuss the hardships of being old atheists. What to do when the other inmates at the retirement home sing hymns after dinner? Throw jello cups at them or get up and stagger out as quickly as your walker will allow?

Everyone check your telomere privilege!

[justinvacula]

Hahahhahahahahahahahhaahhahahahahahahahahahahahh!

I needed that! :lol:

I'll refrain however, from showing people where PZ has his personal home addy and phone listed publicly on the internet, and how much his house was sold for in May 2003. It's location shows why he was so pissed off at the church music playing in the graveyard a couple years ago. He lives very close to it. I'd have been pissed off too. I'll refrain from details though, because well, doxxing, and what if someone actually ordered a truckload of straw delivered to him? I don't want to be blamed for that! It sure would be funny though.

Must. Hold. Back.

MYKERU!!!!!!!

...or maybe Reap whom PZ seemed to suggest had ordered a test drive

[Pitchguest]

Hey, Justin, per your sig, tweet this to EllenBeth:

http://i.imgur.com/zccQ0.jpg

[Southern]

Here is an excellent blog regarding sex work and the laws in various countries. She disputes incorrect claims/numbers by feminists and religious nutters. She revealed that the Swedish anti-sexworker laws (the ones that SAY prostitution is legal, but who made it illegal for them to have customers) are not in fact, based on any science whatsoever, just lies about numbers and other 'evidence'.

http://www.lauraagustin.com/

I understand the "buying isn't illegal, selling is" logic (in regards to drugs, where the buyer may be an addict), but "selling isn't illegal, buying is" baffles me. How that even begin to make sense?

The logic behind these laws is the assumption that every female sex worker is forced into the job and nobody does this work by choice.
She is being trafficked against her will and thus is not ultimately responsible for any transaction that occurs.
The person responsible is the client, who, by paying for sex, is aiding in the illegal trafficking and forced sex/rape of women.

Therefore the law makes it a crime for the client to pay for the services of a sex worker.
The sex worker herself is held to be blameless.

It makes perfect sense if you are an anti sex-work gender feminist.

What they don't acknowledge is that they are really punishing the sex workers, by making it illegal for them to have customers. "We'll save you! We need to take away your income though. It's for your own good."

Yeah, but then why not make prostitution itself illegal? They could even justify it with "it's a very degrading way to live, and no person should have to resort to it" - an argument that actually resembles making sense (even if you don't agree with it).

But instead they go "Oh, ok, you are free to be a sex worker - but it's a fellony if someone actually hires you". Does not compute at all.

[Southern]

Well... maybe not a truckload, but what about a small packet of straw with a nice note?

"Dear PZ:

We fear that you may be running off on straw to base your arguments on. Here's a small packet - while it will not suffice to make a whole strawman, we hope it helps for what it's worth. If you need more, we can gladly send you a truckload of it. Just send us the word, and we can contact some straw farm and make the arrangements.

From your best friends ever,

The Slymepit

PS: Don't worry, there's no anthrax or poison on this packet. We promise."

[DeepInsideYourMind]

That's his dad isn't it?

Ageism running rampant in the atheist/skeptic community! We need a conference for the age-challenged folks to discuss the hardships of being old atheists. What to do when the other inmates at the retirement home sing hymns after dinner? Throw jello cups at them or get up and stagger out as quickly as your walker will allow?

White, male, middle class, straight, cis gendered, and now middle aged!


Fuck me I got me some goddam privilege

[Scented Nectar]

Hahahhahahahahahahahhaahhahahahahahahahahahahahh!

I needed that! :lol:

I'll refrain however, from showing people where PZ has his personal home addy and phone listed publicly on the internet, and how much his house was sold for in May 2003. It's location shows why he was so pissed off at the church music playing in the graveyard a couple years ago. He lives very close to it. I'd have been pissed off too. I'll refrain from details though, because well, doxxing, and what if someone actually ordered a truckload of straw delivered to him? I don't want to be blamed for that! It sure would be funny though.

Must. Hold. Back.

It's hard not to do it, isn't it? Detailed thoughts arise, like how it's best to have them deliver it just after the work day has started (front lawn delivery is fine). Heheheh. :lol: If only google maps showed things in real time! :)

[Scented Nectar]

Hahahhahahahahahahahhaahhahahahahahahahahahahahh!

I needed that! :lol:

I'll refrain however, from showing people where PZ has his personal home addy and phone listed publicly on the internet, and how much his house was sold for in May 2003. It's location shows why he was so pissed off at the church music playing in the graveyard a couple years ago. He lives very close to it. I'd have been pissed off too. I'll refrain from details though, because well, doxxing, and what if someone actually ordered a truckload of straw delivered to him? I don't want to be blamed for that! It sure would be funny though.

Must. Hold. Back.

http://www.hayexchange.com/mn.php

You're making this much too easy. And tempting! :D

[Scented Nectar]

Hahahhahahahahahahahhaahhahahahahahahahahahahahh!

I needed that! :lol:

I'll refrain however, from showing people where PZ has his personal home addy and phone listed publicly on the internet, and how much his house was sold for in May 2003. It's location shows why he was so pissed off at the church music playing in the graveyard a couple years ago. He lives very close to it. I'd have been pissed off too. I'll refrain from details though, because well, doxxing, and what if someone actually ordered a truckload of straw delivered to him? I don't want to be blamed for that! It sure would be funny though.

Must. Hold. Back.

MYKERU!!!!!!!

...or maybe Reap whom PZ seemed to suggest had ordered a test drive

Yeah, as if PZ's not also pissed off all the local people too! It's much more likely a pissed off student or some minister in town that PZ's badmouthed who did those test drive pranks. :D

[Malsbert]

Here is an excellent blog regarding sex work and the laws in various countries. She disputes incorrect claims/numbers by feminists and religious nutters. She revealed that the Swedish anti-sexworker laws (the ones that SAY prostitution is legal, but who made it illegal for them to have customers) are not in fact, based on any science whatsoever, just lies about numbers and other 'evidence'.

http://www.lauraagustin.com/

I understand the "buying isn't illegal, selling is" logic (in regards to drugs, where the buyer may be an addict), but "selling isn't illegal, buying is" baffles me. How that even begin to make sense?

The logic behind these laws is the assumption that every female sex worker is forced into the job and nobody does this work by choice.
She is being trafficked against her will and thus is not ultimately responsible for any transaction that occurs.
The person responsible is the client, who, by paying for sex, is aiding in the illegal trafficking and forced sex/rape of women.

Therefore the law makes it a crime for the client to pay for the services of a sex worker.
The sex worker herself is held to be blameless.

It makes perfect sense if you are an anti sex-work gender feminist.

What they don't acknowledge is that they are really punishing the sex workers, by making it illegal for them to have customers. "We'll save you! We need to take away your income though. It's for your own good."

Yeah, but then why not make prostitution itself illegal? They could even justify it with "it's a very degrading way to live, and no person should have to resort to it" - an argument that actually resembles making sense (even if you don't agree with it).

But instead they go "Oh, ok, you are free to be a sex worker - but it's a fellony if someone actually hires you". Does not compute at all.

It computes just fine.
In Scandinavia blaming the sex workers is not PC, but someone must be the "bad people", so they blame the customers.

ps.
The voters in Scandinavia wont buy your; "it's a very degrading way to live, and no person should have to resort to it" argument, at least 90% of the voters in Denmark would literally LOL if you tried it. ( not sure about the situation in sweden, but as a general rule of thumb; Dane == Swede == Norse, to anyone BUT the Danes, Swedes, Norse. )

[Michael J]

This.

Also, the only reason the republican party is the way it is right now, is that all the different christian denominations got scared enough to band together, rather than fight each other, turning them into a powerful lobby. You think a Mormon could have support from the "Christian Right" 25-30 years ago?

After watching the last US elections, I think due to the fact that so few people vote in the primaries you don't even need to dominate the party. You just need to get enough people out to vote in the Primaries. I think that with the current situation there wont be another Republican president as the primaries will continue to select a crazy person or an etch-a-sketch person.

[Dick Strawkins]

Yeah, but then why not make prostitution itself illegal? They could even justify it with "it's a very degrading way to live, and no person should have to resort to it" - an argument that actually resembles making sense (even if you don't agree with it).

But instead they go "Oh, ok, you are free to be a sex worker - but it's a fellony if someone actually hires you". Does not compute at all.

It does make sense if you assume no woman wants to work as a prostitute but any who do are being forced to do so.
If you simply made prostitution illegal in those circumstances then the sex worker would become criminal herself. By making the buyer the one who commits the crime you absolve the sex worker of any blame.

Of course some (most?) sex workers do it out of choice - but the fact that they will be deprived of an income is not a problem for the gender or radical feminists who propose such laws - they hate those types of women!

[Scented Nectar]

Here is an excellent blog regarding sex work and the laws in various countries. She disputes incorrect claims/numbers by feminists and religious nutters. She revealed that the Swedish anti-sexworker laws (the ones that SAY prostitution is legal, but who made it illegal for them to have customers) are not in fact, based on any science whatsoever, just lies about numbers and other 'evidence'.

http://www.lauraagustin.com/

I understand the "buying isn't illegal, selling is" logic (in regards to drugs, where the buyer may be an addict), but "selling isn't illegal, buying is" baffles me. How that even begin to make sense?

The logic behind these laws is the assumption that every female sex worker is forced into the job and nobody does this work by choice.
She is being trafficked against her will and thus is not ultimately responsible for any transaction that occurs.
The person responsible is the client, who, by paying for sex, is aiding in the illegal trafficking and forced sex/rape of women.

Therefore the law makes it a crime for the client to pay for the services of a sex worker.
The sex worker herself is held to be blameless.

It makes perfect sense if you are an anti sex-work gender feminist.

What they don't acknowledge is that they are really punishing the sex workers, by making it illegal for them to have customers. "We'll save you! We need to take away your income though. It's for your own good."

Yeah, but then why not make prostitution itself illegal? They could even justify it with "it's a very degrading way to live, and no person should have to resort to it" - an argument that actually resembles making sense (even if you don't agree with it).

But instead they go "Oh, ok, you are free to be a sex worker - but it's a fellony if someone actually hires you". Does not compute at all.

It's because they are convinced on nothing more than faith in feminist writings, that all female sex workers are victims and forced into it. Brainwashed, Stepford wife ones if they claim that they want to do such work and totally consent to it. Their consent is not believed by other women. Imagine if a woman's consent or non-consent to other types of sex were treated the same way. Everyone would be charged with rape, since no woman is believed that she consented (all hetero sex is rape according to many radfems). Conversely, that would make all consenting sex a form of rape of the woman involved (except if lesbian, even if lesbian rape). I mean, if we are too stupid to know when we're consenting or not according to the radfems, then it also follows that no woman can accuse anyone of rape. I mean, what the fuck does she know about consenting or not? Women are not adults with adult agency according to them.

This women can't consent shit is going to bite them hard on the ankles, like now that they claim tipsy sex is rape, they're going to also see the nasty side of it too. Men will claim that the same low blood alcohol levels that make women unable to understand consent, make them unable too! No drunk man can be accused of rape, because he was too intoxicated to understand consent. Goose, meet gander!

If they take away a woman's right to choose consenting or not consenting, then all agency is gone, and others (random men, feminists) will tell you whether you're consenting or not. So, oops, the anti-sexworker types will decree that you are raped in every business transaction you do, that leads to no woman being believed about real rapes. I mean, how can she tell she wasn't consenting. Radfems have taken our consent agency away. They can't claim rape anymore even when it's real. That's how badly they have totally shot themselves in the feet.

[AndrewV69]

it is *A* definition of harm. not the only one, nor is it complete. Sorry, not giving you a laundry list so you can find an edge case and then try to tell me that's how things are every day for every man. You're really bad at hiding your intentions.

More hand waving and projection. You are a mind reader? Or are you just projecting your intention on someone else?

Let me do some mind reading of my own then. Seems fair to me.

You pulled some stupid shit out of your arse and projected it onto me. When you get called on it, you engage on more hand waving because you can not substantiate the stupid shit you pulled out of your arse.

Based on what you've written I am. You spend a lot of time afraid of things. You should try not being afraid all the time. It's rather liberating. Also, hiding under the bed gets a bit boring.

More projection and mind reading. Well, allow me to retort!

Based on what you have written you seem to spend a lot of time afraid, and seem to think that others do also.

The roots of inequalities in family court predate the radfem movement by some decades. But, if you have hard, verifiable proof that *none* of those issues existed before radfems, by all means present your proof of the fucking paradise society was prior to the 1960s/1970s.

Now you are attempting to shift the goalposts. You are being called out on your hand waving and spewing stupid shit while projecting your issues onto others.

Not to mention behaving like a "New Media Douchbag" while you are at it. Which seems to be the whole point of the exercise. To behave like a "New Media Douchbag".

No more than I am going to define what "taking a shit is". I'm not here to make your life easy. If you think you have proof of actual harm, by all means present it. As we've seen, when presented with proof, (not handwaving and fearmongering), I'm perfectly willing to admit mistakes, as I did with the Summers derivatives timelines.

Show me the money already.

You are the one insisting that there is no real harm while hand waving and spewing stupid shit while projecting your own imagination on to others. Now you are trying to duck out of it.

And an uncharitable reading of "willing to admit mistakes" is "I had no choice". Guess what a "New Media Douchbag" would say to that?

You're the one making the claims that radfems are taking over the world and if we don't stop them SOMETHING BAD WILL HAPPEN! ANY MINUTE NOW.

I'm the one saying you're a scared little man who wants attention and manages to feel important by trying to scare people into agreeing with you.

More projection on your part. You are the one projecting "fear" and "scare". What is it that you are afraid of that that you project this to others?

You, JTO, Elam, and quite frankly, a rather large chunk of the MRM movement are about as self-aware as a half-empty can of day-old tuna. In that, you're not much different from that you oppose. You take a number of clearly-defineable issues which admittedly are problems, and start looking for boogey(wo)men in the corners everywhere. You turn overexcited college students, who, mind you get just as loud and stupid over minor mealplan changes as over MRM speakers, into the devil. They're young. Young people blow EVERYTHING out of proportion. I see my son do it all the time, he's 19. If you could get a degree in blowing things out of proportion, he'd have a fucking Ph.D.

More broad sweeping statements filled with invective and ascribed to me. More hand waving and assertion based on your feelings and projected on to me. Are you attacking me as a proxy for the MRM? Are you attacking my ideas or those of the MRM?

Based on your previous track record so far, I am not going to be surprised at what next you pull.

The difference is, most people grow the fuck up at some point, and realize that you can't make everything TEH END OF TEH WURLD. At some point, you have to sit down and actually analyze things. I did this with Mckinnon et al YEARS ago, and that was when Edwin Fucking Meese was giving her lot a FAR larger platform than she has now. Even the internet wasn't as good a deal for her as that traveling geek show he ran.

And some people never grow up. Start acting like an adult and I might start taking what you have to say seriously in the future.

Even then I realized that the people who would actually try to create her vision of society were the same numbers as any other fringe group, and that by and large, society routes around idiots the way the internet routes around damage. You don't pretend they don't exist, but you also don't elevate them to the levels you have.

Right right. Of course you do not say what "damage" is, and I am wondering if your definition of "damage" is as nebulous as your still missing and still unclear definition of what "actual harm" is.

Who knows what you mean? It might be perfectly clear to you but you seem to be having difficulty making a clear statement about much of anything.

Look at your fucking group, really look at that website and the people behind it, and the vast, the VAST amount of sheer idiocy and stupidity you have to say you disagree with or wish wasn't there and all the rest. You spend more time telling me what you DON'T agree with than what you do, and then you play the "but the rest of it, that's all dead bang right, and you should take it all VERY SERIOUSLY"? On a good day, there's rather a lot there that only differs in name and gender focus from the drivel hensley is spouting, yet because it's got a supposedly more advantageous label for me, I should suddenly accord drivel some serious weight? Hell, even *here*, when forced to dig beyond the hysteria, you've had to back off your original claims of "OMG SEE WHAT TEH RADFEMZ DID!!!" more than once. Doesn't that indicate ANYTHING to you?

Right my "fucking group". Still conflating me with AVfM. Still projecting despite evidence to the contrary.

You take something you believe to be "sheer idiocy and stupidity" and ascribe it to me, and then I have to state that I "DON'T agree" with it because you have conflated me with AVfM and expect me to defend things I never said.

Then you continue to infer that I had to retreat from a position I never held, and which was in fact was something you made up in your head.

And then, you still continue to do it. And then you have the effrontery to claim that others are "as self-aware as a half-empty can of day-old tuna".

Or is the movement so important to you that you ignore even reality?

I am not finding any of your arguments credible. You appear to be doing your best to make it difficult to find one in the midst of your ongoing conflation, projection and hand waving.

All of this while giving every appearance of behaving like a "New Media Douchbag" that you apparently decry, without giving the slightest hint of awareness of the inherent hypocrisy of behaving like one yourself.

[Scented Nectar]

Yeah, but then why not make prostitution itself illegal? They could even justify it with "it's a very degrading way to live, and no person should have to resort to it" - an argument that actually resembles making sense (even if you don't agree with it).

But instead they go "Oh, ok, you are free to be a sex worker - but it's a fellony if someone actually hires you". Does not compute at all.

It does make sense if you assume no woman wants to work as a prostitute but any who do are being forced to do so.
If you simply made prostitution illegal in those circumstances then the sex worker would become criminal herself. By making the buyer the one who commits the crime you absolve the sex worker of any blame.

Of course some (most?) sex workers do it out of choice - but the fact that they will be deprived of an income is not a problem for the gender or radical feminists who propose such laws - they hate those types of women!

That last bit. That! The anti-sexworkers hate the sexworkers who do not consider themselves victims. The radfems always trot out a few ex-workers who turned xtian later and badmouthed their oh so sinful prior jobs.

[Steersman]

FWIW, my recent comment on Michael Nugent’s post pertaining to “Sexist photos”:

Michael,

Quite enjoyed your post, including the original one [“Sexist photo ….”] – much food for thought. And I quite agree with your general policy of calling out the egregious sexism in more than a few of the comments you quoted – one can, and should, I think, quite reasonably characterize those individuals as sexists and sociopaths, if not outright psychopaths (“the thought is party to the deed”).

However, where the cheese gets a little more binding, where the wicket gets a little sticky, is in the inferences and conclusions that many seem to draw from those incidents. While it is, I think, a decidedly moot point as to how prevalent that sexism is in any community, much less the atheist/skeptic one, it really does not help matters much when so many seem to be unclear on the concept and are so cavalier, to be charitable, in levelling charges of sexism and of being a sexist.

And as a rather egregious example of that there is the recent case of a bunch of “Freethought” bloggers who accused Michael Shermer of having issued a sexist comment when he asserted that “[atheist activism], it’s more of a guy thing”. And, in passing, I think that that accusation is tantamount to accusing him of being a sexist, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding: decidedly and entirely analogous to asserting that claiming someone murdered someone else is not tantamount if not completely equivalent to asserting that they are a murderer. But relative to Shermer’s comment and the question of the concept of “sexism” itself, I find it rather curious, if somewhat disturbing and rather problematic, that no one – and I mean absolutely no one; and I’ve asked repeatedly – has been prepared to show or prove how that statement of his qualifies as sexism by the dictionary definition, i.e., exhibiting discrimination – don’t recollect him saying that women weren’t allowed to engage in atheist activism of any kind – or that it was “promoting stereotypes” as simply noting some disparities hardly qualifies as that.

While I quite agree with you that we should be calling out particularly egregious cases of sexism – the broken window criminological theory, one might also suggest that people should be a little more circumspect about their accusations of that. Those guilty of not doing so might want to reflect on the parable of the little boy who cried “wolf” once too often – or, more to the point, the little “feminists” who cried “sexist” once too often.

[Dick Strawkins]

It computes just fine.
In Scandinavia blaming the sex workers is not PC, but someone must be the "bad people", so they blame the customers.

ps.
The voters in Scandinavia wont buy your; "it's a very degrading way to live, and no person should have to resort to it" argument, at least 90% of the voters in Denmark would literally LOL if you tried it. ( not sure about the situation in sweden, but as a general rule of thumb; Dane == Swede == Norse, to anyone BUT the Danes, Swedes, Norse. )

My experience of Sweden is that there is very little history of mainstream prostitution there (compared to places like Holland, Germany or even the UK.) The public perception of a modern prostitute in Sweden is a foreigner who is trafficked into the country under false pretenses (usually by some shady eastern European gang) and then forced to work as a prostitute.

Ironically, since the law criminalizing clients was passed there has been a huge increase in prostitution in Sweden. Except they don't call it prostitution. There are now thai massage parlors absolutely everywhere in big cities like Stockholm - some of them having signs claiming that they are genuine massage parlors :shifty:
But as these are poor asian women, the Swedish feminists don't give a damn.
I was genuinely shocked when I first saw it - and read at the same time the hollow claims about the client laws solving the prostitution problem there.

[ERV]

Well... maybe not a truckload, but what about a small packet of straw with a nice note?

"Dear PZ:

We fear that you may be running off on straw to base your arguments on. Here's a small packet - while it will not suffice to make a whole strawman, we hope it helps for what it's worth. If you need more, we can gladly send you a truckload of it. Just send us the word, and we can contact some straw farm and make the arrangements.

From your best friends ever,

The Slymepit

PS: Don't worry, there's no anthrax or poison on this packet. We promise."

Well, we dont have to mail him any straw. At the next conference he speaks at, someone could just slip some hay into his jacket pockets...

[/old joke]

I AM SO TWEAKED OUT RIGHT NOW.

Little Monster has been working perfectly (low efficiency, but better than I had hoped) for a while now (the experiment I was so pumped about before), but for the life of me, I could NOT get Big Boy going. Little Monster will be helpful for many things, but Big Boy will just have so many more applications, I NEED it to go.

Well Ive been pissed off as fuck because it wouldnt GO. I kept thinking 'maybe this is wrong?' 'maybe that is wrong?' couldnt fix it.

I FIGURED OUT WHAT WAS WRONG.

Bonus:
I KNOW HOW TO FIX IT. I can fix it with a part Ive had in the lab since fucking FOUR MOTHER FUCKING YEARS AGO. WHATEVER. I can fix Big Boy!!

EVERYTHINGS COMING UP MILHOUSE!!!!!

ALL CAPITAL LETTERS!!!!!!

[TheMudbrooker]

Well... maybe not a truckload, but what about a small packet of straw with a nice note?

"Dear PZ:

We fear that you may be running off on straw to base your arguments on. Here's a small packet - while it will not suffice to make a whole strawman, we hope it helps for what it's worth. If you need more, we can gladly send you a truckload of it. Just send us the word, and we can contact some straw farm and make the arrangements.

From your best friends ever,

The Slymepit

PS: Don't worry, there's no anthrax or poison on this packet. We promise."

Well, we dont have to mail him any straw. At the next conference he speaks at, someone could just slip some hay into his jacket pockets...

[/old joke]

I AM SO TWEAKED OUT RIGHT NOW.

Little Monster has been working perfectly (low efficiency, but better than I had hoped) for a while now (the experiment I was so pumped about before), but for the life of me, I could NOT get Big Boy going. Little Monster will be helpful for many things, but Big Boy will just have so many more applications, I NEED it to go.

Well Ive been pissed off as fuck because it wouldnt GO. I kept thinking 'maybe this is wrong?' 'maybe that is wrong?' couldnt fix it.

I FIGURED OUT WHAT WAS WRONG.

Bonus:
I KNOW HOW TO FIX IT. I can fix it with a part Ive had in the lab since fucking FOUR MOTHER FUCKING YEARS AGO. WHATEVER. I can fix Big Boy!!

EVERYTHINGS COMING UP MILHOUSE!!!!!

ALL CAPITAL LETTERS!!!!!!

You can tell the truth to us Abbie, you had Big Boy plugged into a switched outlet that wasn't turned on (ala Clark Griswold) didn't you?
*runs away*

[Steersman]

Well... maybe not a truckload, but what about a small packet of straw with a nice note?

"Dear PZ:
<snip>
From your best friends ever,
The Slymepit

PS: Don't worry, there's no anthrax or poison on this packet. We promise."

Well, we dont have to mail him any straw. At the next conference he speaks at, someone could just slip some hay into his jacket pockets...

[/old joke]

I AM SO TWEAKED OUT RIGHT NOW.

<snip>
I FIGURED OUT WHAT WAS WRONG.

Bonus:
I KNOW HOW TO FIX IT. I can fix it with a part Ive had in the lab since fucking FOUR MOTHER FUCKING YEARS AGO. WHATEVER. I can fix Big Boy!!

EVERYTHINGS COMING UP MILHOUSE!!!!!

ALL CAPITAL LETTERS!!!!!!

Far out; congrats. I expect more than a few are waiting for details whenever they’re available – without compromising your research or position of course.

[Remick]

This.

Also, the only reason the republican party is the way it is right now, is that all the different christian denominations got scared enough to band together, rather than fight each other, turning them into a powerful lobby. You think a Mormon could have support from the "Christian Right" 25-30 years ago?

After watching the last US elections, I think due to the fact that so few people vote in the primaries you don't even need to dominate the party. You just need to get enough people out to vote in the Primaries. I think that with the current situation there wont be another Republican president as the primaries will continue to select a crazy person or an etch-a-sketch person.

Or unless republican state governments in swing stated change from the winner take all method for electoral votes.

[Remick]

EVERYTHINGS COMING UP MILHOUSE!!!!!

ALL CAPITAL LETTERS!!!!!!

Lol, I say the milhouse line all the time.