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

Tribble wrote:

Za-zen wrote:What justin chooses to say for himself, is of course, up to him. But it is pure political manipulation, the question is not what he is being asked to say, but why is he being asked to say it.

Yeah, it's a power-politics game on the part of Silverman. Really disgusting. Either man-up and say 'No' or go on the show and talk about the issues you hold dear. But this manipulative crap... For the birds... And not the cute fluffy ones...

Skeeve wrote:

Skeptic_Duh wrote:

justinvacula wrote:What was Ophelia thinking when she posted this?

A beseeching gesture this time

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... this-time/

**image removed**

Cue another Bachmann hotdog incident?

http://phawrongula.wikia.com/wiki/The_M ... g_Incident

What the actual hell?

The two do not even remotely resemble each other.

Brave Hero? more like Brave Idiot.

Your always complaining on how she is talking about you and here you are, trying to make shit up about her.

Concur with the above - "get a life" -

Justin, pretend Karla is with you when you start to post this kind of crap. Hear her say, "No, Justin, not that."

Lsuoma wrote:

welch wrote:

Lsuoma wrote:

AndrewV69 wrote:

ReneeHendricks wrote:Ok, I'll admit it. The ADS in me glazes over the extremely long posts here. I'm sure I'm probably missing out on some important/great discussions when I do this. Anyone else here do the rapid skim past thing when it comes to posts that are well over three or four paragraphs long?

*wave*

(usually when welsh is on the rag though)

When the name of the day in English ends with "y" then?

I'm a SysAdmin who still has to do desktop support. You barely-breathing blobs wish you could do pissed-off as well as my clan.

I'm hiring a team of 12 systems engineers who won't have to desktop support. Want to move from Fla?

Karmakin wrote: It wasn't overnight. Between the move to FTB and the start of A+, I noticed a pattern. OB would post something rather reasonable and even-handed, her commentators would jump on her about it, and she'd back-peddle away as fast as she can. This happened on several occasions.

I'd actually go as far as to say that OB has a serious case of Stockholm Syndrome.

Lsuoma wrote:This is absolutely one of the funniest things I have EVER seen:

[youtube]PObvnI_U1qU[/youtube]

bovarchist wrote:

curriejean wrote:My Twitter account (@_interrobanging) has been suspended within a few hours of my use of it, for "aggressive following." It's an older account that I had hanging around for a while, but just started using it today, and am following 43 people.

Twitter's help center says, "Aggressive following is defined as indiscriminately following hundreds of accounts just to garner attention. However, following a few users if their accounts seem interesting is normal and is not considered aggressive." 43 is not "hundreds."

I sent a message to the twitter people about it.

Does this happen often? I don't want to assume I'm a victim of false reporting (spam reporting maybe?), but that's what it looks like from here.

Stupid question: Why would you want to follow those people anyway? When Watson/Myers blocked me, they did me a favor. I should send them a fruit basket. Or meat platter, in Watson's case.

Voryn wrote:

bovarchist wrote:I mean, I know Caine, and I've vaguely heard of Janine, and then of course there's the redhead guy, and the guy who used to be Tis Himself. And don't forget the fish guy, and the guy who named himself after an obscure Hitchhiker's character, and the OTHER guy who named himself after an obscure Hitchhiker's character, and also Jade. Beyond that, I just sort of tune out.

Personally, I'm just assuming Caine and Janine are female. I chose those three because they all seem to mind their grammar, whereas Jadehawk not so much.

If I had to order my picks.. ehh.. that's where it gets tough. Caine would be third, from what I've seen Janine seems in tune with the Bruce, but Sally and Bruce show up together a good deal..

Janine > Sally > Caine. Power-pick Marcotte. (This is the McGlory lottery right?)

John Greg wrote:Could Bruce McGlory be LeftSidePositive?

LSP is usually more hostile, vicious, and plain outright nasty piece of work than most of the other usual suspects. Usually. And I think Jadehawk, while nasty, is actually too well spoken -- as in reasonabley literate sounding. To my 'net ears, LSP and McGlory both have that ragingly angry high-schooler thing going on.

Tribble wrote:

JayTeeAitch wrote:I see Silverman has taken Vacula up on his offer:

https://twitter.com/justinvacula/status ... 6179948545

Cue backlash and then backpeddle...

Making the acceptance a sweet pill of lolz, Myers had previously posted: http://tinyurl.com/pngmmkw

David Silverman, a principled atheist


Atheism

by PZ Myers


Go to twitter now: David Silverman (@MrAtheistPants) is tearing the atheist trolls a new one. This is really what I like to see: a leader of a major atheist organization taking an unambiguous stand against this ulcer in our midst, and repudiating the spammy, photoshopping, lying behavior of the anti-feminist clique.

How much do I appreciate it? With my dollars. My wife is going to sign us up for a lifetime membership in American Atheists while I’m away. It’s not a casual investment, so not everyone can do that, but you could send them a donation to let the organization know that you like a leader with a spine.

lolz. I wonder if that contribution will be made now...


Myers is an idiot. Don't crow in the 3rd quarter, the game ain't over until the fat lady screams "Mansplaining" and "Patriarchy."

Ron Lindsay opened last week’s Women in Secularism 2 conference with a very inappropriate welcome message. It was a misuse of his position as the head of the organization sponsoring the event to take the opportunity to level serious and controversial charges against the members of the audience in lieu of a welcome. It was especially troubling, from an optics point of view if nothing else, that he chose to do this specifically to feminists, a group defined primarily by the women associated with it. That he broke with traditional form of being a host rather than a critic when the event’s speaker roster was set to be all women and his audience was predominantly women sent a message, whether he intended it or not. It was that women don’t deserve the same basic respect and civility that is routinely afforded to your average conference speakers and participants. A crowd of women can get a stern talking to and skeptical querying about issues they are probably oblivious to in lieu of a welcome.

While average living standards are still among the highest in Europe, governments have failed to substantially reduce long-term youth unemployment and poverty, which have affected immigrant communities worst.

The left-leaning tabloid Aftonbladet said the riots represented a "gigantic failure" of government policies, which had underpinned the rise of ghettos in the suburbs.

"We have failed to give many of the people in the suburbs a hope for the future," Anna-Margrethe Livh of the opposition Left Party wrote in the daily Svenska Dagbladet.

An anti-immigrant party, the Sweden Democrats, has risen to third in polls ahead of a general election due next year, reflecting unease about immigrants among many voters.

Some 15 percent of the population is foreign-born, the highest proportion in the Nordic region. Unemployment among those born outside Sweden stands at 16 percent, compared with 6 percent for native Swedes, according to OECD data

Lsuoma wrote:This is absolutely one of the funniest things I have EVER seen:

[youtube]PObvnI_U1qU[/youtube]

justinvacula wrote:A wise man has been taken today by the FTB dogmatists...Dan Fincke. Very sad.

Feminism, Civility, and Ron Lindsay’s Welcome to Women in Secularism

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswith ... ecularism/

Here's just the first paragraph (emphasis mine):

Ron Lindsay opened last week’s Women in Secularism 2 conference with a very inappropriate welcome message. It was a misuse of his position as the head of the organization sponsoring the event to take the opportunity to level serious and controversial charges against the members of the audience in lieu of a welcome. It was especially troubling, from an optics point of view if nothing else, that he chose to do this specifically to feminists, a group defined primarily by the women associated with it. That he broke with traditional form of being a host rather than a critic when the event’s speaker roster was set to be all women and his audience was predominantly women sent a message, whether he intended it or not. It was that women don’t deserve the same basic respect and civility that is routinely afforded to your average conference speakers and participants. A crowd of women can get a stern talking to and skeptical querying about issues they are probably oblivious to in lieu of a welcome.

What the actual fuck?

Guest wrote:

welch wrote: Seeing the idiocy of his last few replies, I'm not as sure as I was. He could also be the MRA version of one of the FTB tits, who came over thinking it would be a big MRA circle-jerk, and is now all butt-hurt that it's not.

I mean he went from "there's never been societal approval of violence against women" to stating that because rape and domestic violence are different crimes, they have nothing to do with each other.

He's not very good at it, because his "a shove is domestic violence" example directly contradicts his earlier "things like shoves shouldn't count".

yeah, lemme give Clarence a gentle shove down a flight of stairs or off a roof, we'll see how he feels about that.

He may not be a troll, but he is about as stupid as the day is long.

Based on the writing style I am 99% sure he's an MRA I've seen on reddit named Crosshook.

Clarence wrote:[Quote ="welch"] Seeing the idiocy of his last few replies, I'm not as sure as I was. He could also be the MRA version of one of the FTB tits, who came over thinking it would be a big MRA circle-jerk, and is now all butt-hurt that it's not.

I mean he went from "there's never been societal approval of violence against women" to stating that because rape and domestic violence are different crimes, they have nothing to do with each other.

He's not very good at it, because his "a shove is domestic violence" example directly contradicts his earlier "things like shoves shouldn't count".

yeah, lemme give Clarence a gentle shove down a flight of stairs or off a roof, we'll see how he feels about that.

He may not be a troll, but he is about as stupid as the day is long.

DeepInsideYourMind wrote:

justinvacula wrote:A wise man has been taken today by the FTB dogmatists...Dan Fincke. Very sad.

Feminism, Civility, and Ron Lindsay’s Welcome to Women in Secularism

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswith ... ecularism/

Here's just the first paragraph (emphasis mine):

Ron Lindsay opened last week’s Women in Secularism 2 conference with a very inappropriate welcome message. It was a misuse of his position as the head of the organization sponsoring the event to take the opportunity to level serious and controversial charges against the members of the audience in lieu of a welcome. It was especially troubling, from an optics point of view if nothing else, that he chose to do this specifically to feminists, a group defined primarily by the women associated with it. That he broke with traditional form of being a host rather than a critic when the event’s speaker roster was set to be all women and his audience was predominantly women sent a message, whether he intended it or not. It was that women don’t deserve the same basic respect and civility that is routinely afforded to your average conference speakers and participants. A crowd of women can get a stern talking to and skeptical querying about issues they are probably oblivious to in lieu of a welcome.

What the actual fuck?

Yep read that in stunned disbelief ... on the plus side he will be welcomed back to FtB now

bovarchist wrote:

Lsuoma wrote:This is absolutely one of the funniest things I have EVER seen:

[youtube]PObvnI_U1qU[/youtube]

Oh that's funny on so many levels. BUT Y'KNOW (cue ominous music) it's not like a field trip to show history students (I'm assuming) what it was like picking cotton back in the day is inherently a bad idea. Except, in this day and age and political climate and geographical area it TOTALLY IS AN INHERENTLY BAD IDEA!

I just laugh at the thought of a bunch of well-meaning clueless crackers earnestly discussing this idea in some coffee-ringed breakroom somewhere. It's a Patton Oswald bit come to life.

Skeeve wrote:

John Greg wrote:Could Bruce McGlory be LeftSidePositive?

LSP is usually more hostile, vicious, and plain outright nasty piece of work than most of the other usual suspects. Usually. And I think Jadehawk, while nasty, is actually too well spoken -- as in reasonabley literate sounding. To my 'net ears, LSP and McGlory both have that ragingly angry high-schooler thing going on.

Oh, I had forgotten about LSP. Bumping Caine and putting LSP in the #1 spot. heh

Voryn wrote:

Skeeve wrote:

John Greg wrote:Could Bruce McGlory be LeftSidePositive?

LSP is usually more hostile, vicious, and plain outright nasty piece of work than most of the other usual suspects. Usually. And I think Jadehawk, while nasty, is actually too well spoken -- as in reasonabley literate sounding. To my 'net ears, LSP and McGlory both have that ragingly angry high-schooler thing going on.

Oh, I had forgotten about LSP. Bumping Caine and putting LSP in the #1 spot. heh

There's so much vicious-crazy it's hard to keep track of! Also, how/where was it found out that Bruce was female, and wasn't it LeftSidePositive that got in a hiss because someone thought they were male?

welch wrote:

Clarence wrote:

welch wrote: Seeing the idiocy of his last few replies, I'm not as sure as I was. He could also be the MRA version of one of the FTB tits, who came over thinking it would be a big MRA circle-jerk, and is now all butt-hurt that it's not.

I mean he went from "there's never been societal approval of violence against women" to stating that because rape and domestic violence are different crimes, they have nothing to do with each other.

He's not very good at it, because his "a shove is domestic violence" example directly contradicts his earlier "things like shoves shouldn't count".

yeah, lemme give Clarence a gentle shove down a flight of stairs or off a roof, we'll see how he feels about that.

He may not be a troll, but he is about as stupid as the day is long.

Hey, ass.
A shove is domestic violence by the current definition. A SHOVE OFF A ROOF is attempted murder. Not quite the same. It's called 'context'. Capische?
Should a shove be treated the same as a rape? Aren't they the same?
And I note how you went from trying to defend your opinion to calling names and now you just are circle jerking with your pals. Whateves.

I don't see a 'critical thinker' in you. I see a tard who can dish it, but can't take it.

Oh no. A little fat fuck full of righteous indignation and shitty writing didn't get what he wanted and now is calling me names. Of course, his skill at calling me names is about on part with the rest of his verbal abilities, so a lot of grunting and hoping he didn't confuse the finger that goes up his ass with the one that goes up his nose.

Look peckerspeck, up until you started playing that move the goalpost shit with domestic violence is totes different than rape, and the other moronic wordsmithing games you started to play, I took you reasonably seriously.

You start that shit? Into the bin you go with all the other semen-soaked busted balloon knots. It ain't like your opinion has any vague form of real importance in anyone's world, including yours. This is what I don't get about wobbly little turds like you. You talk a bunch of shit like your some fucking rhetorical badass, and then the instant you get any kind of pushback, out come the rage tears and you galumph off in a mess of grumbling and angry masturbation.

Admit it, you're really Setar.

welch wrote:Also, what the fuck is up with clarence and his allergy to not fucking up quotes? It's really not that hard. Stop dicking with the quotes you addlepated goat rectum.

welch wrote:Also, what the fuck is up with clarence and his allergy to not fucking up quotes? It's really not that hard. Stop dicking with the quotes you addlepated goat rectum.

Dick Strawkins wrote:

Clarence wrote:
More to the point, I can't remember the last time a woman has gotten multiple (as opposed to from a stalker or former lover or some singular threat in the context of a relationship) death or rape threats on the net and had something actually happen to her.

Surely these ignorant bitches aren't afraid that Justin is going to assault or rape them, are they?

Are you fucking stupid or something?

If a woman gets multiple rape or death threats then something IS happening to her.
She is getting threatened and can rightfully feel terrorized.
To threaten someone with violence or rape is a crime and the person on the end of these threats is a victim of that crime.

Yes, most of the online threats are going to be trolls, but that doesn't make it a non issue.
I doubt that anyone seriously thought Justin was a threat but I think they may have some justification for a dislike of AVFM which seemingly has some fans who don't consider online threats to be an issue unless they are actually acted upon.

Metalogic42 wrote:

welch wrote:

Clarence wrote:

welch wrote: Seeing the idiocy of his last few replies, I'm not as sure as I was. He could also be the MRA version of one of the FTB tits, who came over thinking it would be a big MRA circle-jerk, and is now all butt-hurt that it's not.

I mean he went from "there's never been societal approval of violence against women" to stating that because rape and domestic violence are different crimes, they have nothing to do with each other.

He's not very good at it, because his "a shove is domestic violence" example directly contradicts his earlier "things like shoves shouldn't count".

yeah, lemme give Clarence a gentle shove down a flight of stairs or off a roof, we'll see how he feels about that.

He may not be a troll, but he is about as stupid as the day is long.

Hey, ass.
A shove is domestic violence by the current definition. A SHOVE OFF A ROOF is attempted murder. Not quite the same. It's called 'context'. Capische?
Should a shove be treated the same as a rape? Aren't they the same?
And I note how you went from trying to defend your opinion to calling names and now you just are circle jerking with your pals. Whateves.

I don't see a 'critical thinker' in you. I see a tard who can dish it, but can't take it.

Oh no. A little fat fuck full of righteous indignation and shitty writing didn't get what he wanted and now is calling me names. Of course, his skill at calling me names is about on part with the rest of his verbal abilities, so a lot of grunting and hoping he didn't confuse the finger that goes up his ass with the one that goes up his nose.

Look peckerspeck, up until you started playing that move the goalpost shit with domestic violence is totes different than rape, and the other moronic wordsmithing games you started to play, I took you reasonably seriously.

You start that shit? Into the bin you go with all the other semen-soaked busted balloon knots. It ain't like your opinion has any vague form of real importance in anyone's world, including yours. This is what I don't get about wobbly little turds like you. You talk a bunch of shit like your some fucking rhetorical badass, and then the instant you get any kind of pushback, out come the rage tears and you galumph off in a mess of grumbling and angry masturbation.

Admit it, you're really Setar.

I almost feel sorry for Clarence.

Almost.

Tribble wrote:[quote="Skep tickle]
I was going to blabber about conscription (required military service) then realized they're not likely to consider that a "right".

curriejean wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:

Clarence wrote:
More to the point, I can't remember the last time a woman has gotten multiple (as opposed to from a stalker or former lover or some singular threat in the context of a relationship) death or rape threats on the net and had something actually happen to her.

Surely these ignorant bitches aren't afraid that Justin is going to assault or rape them, are they?

Are you fucking stupid or something?

If a woman gets multiple rape or death threats then something IS happening to her.
She is getting threatened and can rightfully feel terrorized.
To threaten someone with violence or rape is a crime and the person on the end of these threats is a victim of that crime.

Yes, most of the online threats are going to be trolls, but that doesn't make it a non issue.
I doubt that anyone seriously thought Justin was a threat but I think they may have some justification for a dislike of AVFM which seemingly has some fans who don't consider online threats to be an issue unless they are actually acted upon.

Nothing of much significance is happening to her, and no, she does not have good reason to feel 'terrorized.' Maybe a little concerned -- concerned enough to report the individual just in case, as I was in regard to the few threats I've received over the years, because the aggressive person seems unstable and might hurt someone nearby (and also, I'll confess, because I was pissed off). And that's where it ends. Jesus, I'm tired of this bullshit. There's no reason to be more frightened of the risk of harm from a death/rape threat on the internet than of the risk while driving on the expressway. Harm could actually be done, but it's that bloody unlikely.

I mean think, for just a second, what this threatened "rape" would entail: finding the victim in her city, then managing to get her alone, then performing a prolonged sex act without consent, then leaving her to go to the police, probably with DNA evidence and an ID, for what that's worth. All this, while being sane enough not to kill the victim too, yet insane enough to commit a rape out of pure malice despite the great risk of failure/arrest, after warning her beforehand by giving her a nice piece incriminating evidence. Has this ever happened, even once?

I'll be your friend, Clarence.

Git wrote:

Tribble wrote:

Za-zen wrote:What justin chooses to say for himself, is of course, up to him. But it is pure political manipulation, the question is not what he is being asked to say, but why is he being asked to say it.

Yeah, it's a power-politics game on the part of Silverman. Really disgusting. Either man-up and say 'No' or go on the show and talk about the issues you hold dear. But this manipulative crap... For the birds... And not the cute fluffy ones...

Yes. This is a bad move, Justin. It will be interpreted as a sign of weakness on your behalf.

The way to deal with entryist ideologues (for that's what we're dealing with here) is simply: No Surrender, No Retreat. Anything else is simply grist to their mill, Never thought I'd say this, but take a leaf out of Neil Kinnock's book on the way he dealt with the Militant Tendancy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_tendency
.

Jack wrote:

bovarchist wrote:

Lsuoma wrote:This is absolutely one of the funniest things I have EVER seen:


Oh that's funny on so many levels. BUT Y'KNOW (cue ominous music) it's not like a field trip to show history students (I'm assuming) what it was like picking cotton back in the day is inherently a bad idea. Except, in this day and age and political climate and geographical area it TOTALLY IS AN INHERENTLY BAD IDEA!

I just laugh at the thought of a bunch of well-meaning clueless crackers earnestly discussing this idea in some coffee-ringed breakroom somewhere. It's a Patton Oswald bit come to life.

Exactly my thoughts when I listened to it. Very funny Vid, especially when he said they couldn't even keep the cotton.

Clarence wrote:
I'll still feel free to disagree with you, but I'll try to always be polite about it. I'll treat you as you treat me. That's all I can promise. As you can see, I don't feel intimidated speaking my mind even to a fucking moderator.

ReneeHendricks wrote:Wow. Clarence and Welch are making it so I just can't stop reading the forum today :D

To be honest, I have to admit to being a bit lost on the whole conversation as I believe they were part of that whole "tl;dr" coupled with my ADS which forced me to skip over the really long and tedious posts.

In any case, I personally don't have a problem with the use of the word bitches. Some women are. Some men are. Some men/women are cunts. Some are douchebags. Some are asshats. These are merely words. Who the fuck cares?

Voryn wrote:There's so much vicious-crazy it's hard to keep track of! Also, how/where was it found out that Bruce was female, and wasn't it LeftSidePositive that got in a hiss because someone thought they were male?

ReneeHendricks wrote:Wow. Clarence and Welch are making it so I just can't stop reading the forum today :D

To be honest, I have to admit to being a bit lost on the whole conversation as I believe they were part of that whole "tl;dr" coupled with my ADS which forced me to skip over the really long and tedious posts.

In any case, I personally don't have a problem with the use of the word bitches. Some women are. Some men are. Some men/women are cunts. Some are douchebags. Some are asshats. These are merely words. Who the fuck cares?

Git wrote:

Tribble wrote:

Za-zen wrote:What justin chooses to say for himself, is of course, up to him. But it is pure political manipulation, the question is not what he is being asked to say, but why is he being asked to say it.

Yeah, it's a power-politics game on the part of Silverman. Really disgusting. Either man-up and say 'No' or go on the show and talk about the issues you hold dear. But this manipulative crap... For the birds... And not the cute fluffy ones...

Yes. This is a bad move, Justin. It will be interpreted as a sign of weakness on your behalf.

The way to deal with entryist ideologues (for that's what we're dealing with here) is simply: No Surrender, No Retreat. Anything else is simply grist to their mill, Never thought I'd say this, but take a leaf out of Neil Kinnock's book on the way he dealt with the Militant Tendancy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_tendency
.

Clarence wrote:

ReneeHendricks wrote:Wow. Clarence and Welch are making it so I just can't stop reading the forum today :D

To be honest, I have to admit to being a bit lost on the whole conversation as I believe they were part of that whole "tl;dr" coupled with my ADS which forced me to skip over the really long and tedious posts.

In any case, I personally don't have a problem with the use of the word bitches. Some women are. Some men are. Some men/women are cunts. Some are douchebags. Some are asshats. These are merely words. Who the fuck cares?

I make no apologies for boring you, Renee. I originally thought I might have a conversation with Mr. Welch, but ...poor me, he didn't like the cut of my ideological jib, at least in part because deliberately or not he misunderstood me.

I DO however apologize to you for my rather poor writing skills and alas, my web skills aren't such that I can properly always format on this forum.

Thank you for not being one of those to use "tone arguments" against me when I described what I consider our "Dishonorable" Opposition. I've seen you focusing on more important stuff here anyway, and for that you have my respect.

Clarence wrote: Please. Save your sorrow, and your fucking attention for someone who needs it like Justin or perhaps some of the victims of those tornadoes. This is the fucking internet. I'm not going to die because a few people who can't argue their case with out insults or properly address links I provide don't like me. Oh Boo-hoo, poor me.

----------------------
Anyway little boy, I've been on the internet for 15 fucking years and I was visiting feminist websites (and getting told to shut up and listen) in 1998. It will take more than you and your snotty little mouth to shut me up, esp in a place that supposedly never bans anyone.

Clarence wrote:I'm also seeing a few "tone arguments" here because I dared to call some dishonest lying scumbags who happen to be female 'bitches'.

Tough tits, really. If the shoe fits, wear it.
I could give a crap less about hurt fee-fees. Any movement that claims people like PZ, Rebecca, and Marcotte as members does not deserve to be called 'skeptical', and that (plus their attempts to ruin and screw over the lives of their ideological opponents) is the important thing here, not what some new commenter calls them in the infamous slymepit.

Peezus Christ!!

bovarchist wrote:

ReneeHendricks wrote:Wow. Clarence and Welch are making it so I just can't stop reading the forum today :D

To be honest, I have to admit to being a bit lost on the whole conversation as I believe they were part of that whole "tl;dr" coupled with my ADS which forced me to skip over the really long and tedious posts.

In any case, I personally don't have a problem with the use of the word bitches. Some women are. Some men are. Some men/women are cunts. Some are douchebags. Some are asshats. These are merely words. Who the fuck cares?

Near as I can figure, Clarence is probably just a guy who isn't very good at making friends, who came here and started trying to ingratiate himself by saying what he thought we wanted to hear, which was basically "bitches, amirite?" ANYWAY, it got depressingly Pharyngulesque in here after that, and then this Sicilian vendetta thing got started, and long story short you and I are the only ones left alive. Roofie?

Whig wrote:

Git wrote:

Tribble wrote:

Za-zen wrote:What justin chooses to say for himself, is of course, up to him. But it is pure political manipulation, the question is not what he is being asked to say, but why is he being asked to say it.

Yeah, it's a power-politics game on the part of Silverman. Really disgusting. Either man-up and say 'No' or go on the show and talk about the issues you hold dear. But this manipulative crap... For the birds... And not the cute fluffy ones...

Yes. This is a bad move, Justin. It will be interpreted as a sign of weakness on your behalf.

The way to deal with entryist ideologues (for that's what we're dealing with here) is simply: No Surrender, No Retreat. Anything else is simply grist to their mill, Never thought I'd say this, but take a leaf out of Neil Kinnock's book on the way he dealt with the Militant Tendancy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_tendency
.

Thanks for your post here, you've introduced me to some tactics that I've seen but didn't know the names of.

Clarence wrote:I can see I'm going to have hit "Preview" for all my posts. I literally hit the italics button and did nothing else and the quotes seemed correctly formed , but instead of italic all I get is two italic tags with the first one somehow improperly formatted. Maybe it's my Firefox. It is a rather new version.

curriejean wrote:

Clarence wrote:
I'll still feel free to disagree with you, but I'll try to always be polite about it. I'll treat you as you treat me. That's all I can promise. As you can see, I don't feel intimidated speaking my mind even to a fucking moderator.

You'd damn well better disagree with me! I meant "friend" in a silly sort of way, as you're a stranger but I have no desire to put you down, and also in response to some others declaring you a locally unwanted person -- for what that's worth, as I don't think I've even posted 10 times here yet.

Clarence wrote:I can see I'm going to have hit "Preview" for all my posts. I literally hit the italics button and did nothing else and the quotes seemed correctly formed , but instead of italic all I get is two italic tags with the first one somehow improperly formatted. Maybe it's my Firefox. It is a rather new version.

Metalogic42 wrote:

Clarence wrote:I can see I'm going to have hit "Preview" for all my posts. I literally hit the italics button and did nothing else and the quotes seemed correctly formed , but instead of italic all I get is two italic tags with the first one somehow improperly formatted. Maybe it's my Firefox. It is a rather new version.

You're probably getting a PEBKAC error. They're quite common.

Jack wrote:

Clarence wrote:I can see I'm going to have hit "Preview" for all my posts. I literally hit the italics button and did nothing else and the quotes seemed correctly formed , but instead of italic all I get is two italic tags with the first one somehow improperly formatted. Maybe it's my Firefox. It is a rather new version.

Even preview is not reliable. It has screwed up underlines a few times for me.

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:

Git wrote:

Tribble wrote:

Za-zen wrote:What justin chooses to say for himself, is of course, up to him. But it is pure political manipulation, the question is not what he is being asked to say, but why is he being asked to say it.

Yeah, it's a power-politics game on the part of Silverman. Really disgusting. Either man-up and say 'No' or go on the show and talk about the issues you hold dear. But this manipulative crap... For the birds... And not the cute fluffy ones...

Yes. This is a bad move, Justin. It will be interpreted as a sign of weakness on your behalf.

The way to deal with entryist ideologues (for that's what we're dealing with here) is simply: No Surrender, No Retreat. Anything else is simply grist to their mill, Never thought I'd say this, but take a leaf out of Neil Kinnock's book on the way he dealt with the Militant Tendancy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_tendency
.

Procedure is to cut straight through the BS and ask why such a condemnation is necessary in this scenario. It only make sense in context of evidence of Justin supporting harassment. His association with harassment comes from accusations by his detractors, so they have the burden of providing evidence other than the fact of their accusations before they can demand a denial. We are now likely to see spin about Justin being pressured into disowning the harassers to save face,

Clarence wrote:

Jack wrote:

Clarence wrote:I can see I'm going to have hit "Preview" for all my posts. I literally hit the italics button and did nothing else and the quotes seemed correctly formed , but instead of italic all I get is two italic tags with the first one somehow improperly formatted. Maybe it's my Firefox. It is a rather new version.

Even preview is not reliable. It has screwed up underlines a few times for me.

Thank you, Jack, that makes me feel better. Maybe I'll just have to grin and bear it.

justinvacula wrote:A wise man has been taken today by the FTB dogmatists...Dan Fincke. Very sad.

Feminism, Civility, and Ron Lindsay’s Welcome to Women in Secularism

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswith ... ecularism/

Here's just the first paragraph (emphasis mine):

Ron Lindsay opened last week’s Women in Secularism 2 conference with a very inappropriate welcome message. It was a misuse of his position as the head of the organization sponsoring the event to take the opportunity to level serious and controversial charges against the members of the audience in lieu of a welcome. It was especially troubling, from an optics point of view if nothing else, that he chose to do this specifically to feminists, a group defined primarily by the women associated with it. That he broke with traditional form of being a host rather than a critic when the event’s speaker roster was set to be all women and his audience was predominantly women sent a message, whether he intended it or not. It was that women don’t deserve the same basic respect and civility that is routinely afforded to your average conference speakers and participants. A crowd of women can get a stern talking to and skeptical querying about issues they are probably oblivious to in lieu of a welcome.

What the actual fuck?

WiS2 conference organizers, on front page of conference website, wrote:We find ourselves at a crossroads.

Around the world, the forces of religion and superstition are reasserting themselves, working to contain and even reverse the progress made in the cause of women’s basic human rights.

And within the freethought movement, nonbelievers and skeptics are passionately debating the role of social justice, particularly in regard to gender equality and incidences of hostility toward women.

Which is the best path forward? How can we best advance both women’s rights and secularism? How do we set priorities? What changes can be made to the secular movement to ensure true gender equality?

A powerful roster of speakers and panelists will tackle these questions and much more at the second Women in Secularism conference, presented by the Center for Inquiry.

Clarence wrote:

Metalogic42 wrote:

Clarence wrote:I can see I'm going to have hit "Preview" for all my posts. I literally hit the italics button and did nothing else and the quotes seemed correctly formed , but instead of italic all I get is two italic tags with the first one somehow improperly formatted. Maybe it's my Firefox. It is a rather new version.

You're probably getting a PEBKAC error. They're quite common.

Well, Mr. Smarty-farty if you can tell me how literally HITTING A BUTTON to get italics (something I've done without problem at websites all over the place, hell, I've even set up my own simple singular webpages and put Italics tags in myself Tech Guru that I am) is MY error, then I'll be sure grant you Buddha Tech status. I've literally never had this particular problem before.

Clarence wrote:I really, really, APPRECIATE that I don't think your first impulse upon disagreeing with someone is to call them in one way or the other : poopyhead, stupid, or a hater of some type.