Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

[Clarence]

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!!

http://gumbercules.com/WHARGARBL.jpg

*Pats your head*
I bet I've spotted you at Manboobz before.
Do try to put a 'cute kitty' pic up sometimes soon. We can never get enough of those.

[zenbabe]

Can we start a Fluevog-type fund to pay for Clarence to have his massive titties removed?

Why? Tits on a male cunt are poetic

[welch]

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.

I'll explain that. I often can't quote you, because being the dipshit you are you like to embed multiple quotes and it always tells me you can't embed more than 5 quotes. I've never claimed to be a web jockey but I know enough to try and strip out all the extraneous quotes. Alas, even when I strip out all but one pair for some reason it still doesn't quote properly. Oh well.

PREVIEW BUTTONS, HOW THE FUCK DO THEY WORK?

Anyway, since you haven't made an argument in about the last page or so that didn't involve calling me names and taking shit out of context, moving the goalposts (I talk about domestic violence and you try to put it in with fucking RAPE for Gods sake, something I've never seen done and is certainly not legally fucking accurate) I've determined to declare victory in this little brouhaha.

You and Oolon are twins, aren't you.

Feel free to address me again when you :
A. Grow up and learn to ask questions rather than assume you know what someone means.Yes, most of that shit you've said about my beliefs is untrue, but it doesn't matter. I slap you down on one thing, you move the goalposts or just call me another name.
B. Decide that disagreeing with someone doesn't mean you are free to call them names.

I SHALL ADDRESS YOUR BESTENCHED ACEPHALIC NETHERS WHENEVER I FEEL SIRRAH! I SHALL NOT ALTER MY ADDRESSING A SINGLE BIT, NOT THE LEAST SIGNIFICANT, NOR THE MOST SIGNIFICANT FOR THE LIKES OF A HUMIDITY-INDUCED TIMING ERROR SUCH AS YOURSELF.

Ironic, you call me all sorts of shit and I've done nothing to you.

a) You've talked a bunch of stupid shit. That's pretty fucking offensive.
b) You have no earthly idea what "irony" actually is, do you.

I call a few woman a slur after they've spent years literally fucking with other people and the skeptical movement, and I get a fucking tone argument from some of your apparently retarded friends.

BEHOLD THE MIGHTY HERO, FOR WHOM THE ENDS ALWAYS JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

What would we do without you Clarabell? I mean, given you didn't exist until not long ago, the answer is clearly "pretty fucking well", but we'll pretend you matter.

I bet you're a total badass when you close the bedroom door and prance about in your he-man underoos in front of a keyboard, aren't you.

It is to laugh.

Guffaw.

Guffaw.

Oh Jeeves, how the lesser peoples amuse 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.

OOOOOOhhhh....you've been on the internet for FIFTEEN WHOLE YEARS.

Well, since you put it that way, that's about the time I was running a Solaris/Irix computer cluster, too many fucking web servers for words, and mapping out a very early transition from NIS+ to LDAP. Oh, and building my own SNMP console when they normally cost over $10K. I had been working on VAXen and AS/400s, and implementing wide-area fiber-optic TR loops prior to that.

I mean, it doesn't match trolling feminists, but still, I was building servers while you were getting into non-fights with protomarcottes and crying that it took so long to download porn, and why don't women see that you're better than all those assholes they keep fucking.

Lemme taste your tears Clarabell. Just one lick, lemme taste those sweet, sweet, rage tears.

[welch]

Can we start a Fluevog-type fund to pay for Clarence to have his massive titties removed?

But then he can't model bras, and how will he make ANY money then?

[Clarence]

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.

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.

:doh: :doh: :doh:

Oh my! You struck me with an acronym that assumes stupidity on my part, and I struck back very mildly. Heck, I even offered you a graceful way out by asking you to show your mad tek skillz off so I could grant you Tech Buddha status. Aren't I just such a horrible person for refusing to bow and scrape at your feet when you insult me? My what an UTTER HYPOCRITE I WOULD BE ...IF my argument had been that it was the never appropriate to call names when somebody calls you names first.

D'oh. The lack of logic here ...hurts.

[welch]

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?

Have I told you lately, that i love you?

[bovarchist]

So basically, mocking someone is worse than libeling them. Agree to disagree, I guess. FWIW, people can shop me into whatever picture they want, as long as they don't call me a terrorist.

[AndrewV69]

AndrewV69 - super cool pix! I would have been terrified!

Huh! Why? These are only Black Bears and they used to be prey animals (based on the way they behave) so most of the time the wild ones are scared of you (well me anyway) unless you do something silly like run away, which tells them that you are prey and not them.

[Skep tickle]

Mistakenly linked twice to the 2012 conference site, and not at all to the 2013 conference site. Please post a request for assistance if you want to see the 2013 (WiS2) site and don't know how to use a search engine. Welch will undoubtedly be "happy" to give tech assistance. :D

[JackSkeptic]

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.

By "tedious" I meant too long, not boring. As I mentioned earlier today, if the post goes much over three or four paragraphs, my attention is completely lost. I tried explaining this to my guy years ago by say it's like my mind is a fast moving train and the switches to put it onto a new track are being flipped constantly.

BIRD!

What was I saying? Oh, yes...

As far as me and important stuff, you obviously missed my posts on "crapping beers" and 55 gallon drums of lube :D

Maybe you need trigger warnings. Also, please do not mention the super seekrit Dungeon with the 55gallons of lube we all found here yesterday. We don't want people jealous. Oh, can I have my whip back please? It has sentimental value.

[Clarence]

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.

I'll explain that. I often can't quote you, because being the dipshit you are you like to embed multiple quotes and it always tells me you can't embed more than 5 quotes. I've never claimed to be a web jockey but I know enough to try and strip out all the extraneous quotes. Alas, even when I strip out all but one pair for some reason it still doesn't quote properly. Oh well.

PREVIEW BUTTONS, HOW THE FUCK DO THEY WORK?

Anyway, since you haven't made an argument in about the last page or so that didn't involve calling me names and taking shit out of context, moving the goalposts (I talk about domestic violence and you try to put it in with fucking RAPE for Gods sake, something I've never seen done and is certainly not legally fucking accurate) I've determined to declare victory in this little brouhaha.

You and Oolon are twins, aren't you.

Feel free to address me again when you :
A. Grow up and learn to ask questions rather than assume you know what someone means.Yes, most of that shit you've said about my beliefs is untrue, but it doesn't matter. I slap you down on one thing, you move the goalposts or just call me another name.
B. Decide that disagreeing with someone doesn't mean you are free to call them names.

I SHALL ADDRESS YOUR BESTENCHED ACEPHALIC NETHERS WHENEVER I FEEL SIRRAH! I SHALL NOT ALTER MY ADDRESSING A SINGLE BIT, NOT THE LEAST SIGNIFICANT, NOR THE MOST SIGNIFICANT FOR THE LIKES OF A HUMIDITY-INDUCED TIMING ERROR SUCH AS YOURSELF.

Ironic, you call me all sorts of shit and I've done nothing to you.

a) You've talked a bunch of stupid shit. That's pretty fucking offensive.
b) You have no earthly idea what "irony" actually is, do you.

I call a few woman a slur after they've spent years literally fucking with other people and the skeptical movement, and I get a fucking tone argument from some of your apparently retarded friends.

BEHOLD THE MIGHTY HERO, FOR WHOM THE ENDS ALWAYS JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

What would we do without you Clarabell? I mean, given you didn't exist until not long ago, the answer is clearly "pretty fucking well", but we'll pretend you matter.

I bet you're a total badass when you close the bedroom door and prance about in your he-man underoos in front of a keyboard, aren't you.

It is to laugh.

Guffaw.

Guffaw.

Oh Jeeves, how the lesser peoples amuse 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.

OOOOOOhhhh....you've been on the internet for FIFTEEN WHOLE YEARS.

Well, since you put it that way, that's about the time I was running a Solaris/Irix computer cluster, too many fucking web servers for words, and mapping out a very early transition from NIS+ to LDAP. Oh, and building my own SNMP console when they normally cost over $10K. I had been working on VAXen and AS/400s, and implementing wide-area fiber-optic TR loops prior to that.

I mean, it doesn't match trolling feminists, but still, I was building servers while you were getting into non-fights with protomarcottes and crying that it took so long to download porn, and why don't women see that you're better than all those assholes they keep fucking.

Lemme taste your tears Clarabell. Just one lick, lemme taste those sweet, sweet, rage tears.

Yawn. At least you were amusing this time. Arguments aren't won and lost by how many servers you ran little boy. The point is you can keep that dunce cap on your avatar until you learn how to address someone properly when they are trying argue facts with you. Facts you were only able to 'refute' if you count moving the goalposts as a refutation.

Now go back to playing D&D in your corner, Gandolt.

[bovarchist]

[Clarence]

So basically, mocking someone is worse than libeling them. Agree to disagree, I guess. FWIW, people can shop me into whatever picture they want, as long as they don't call me a terrorist.

Yeah..that does seem to be the argument of SOME on here. Oh MY...I MOCKED Rebecca Twatson. Clearly I don't respect wimminz because I used THAT word. I guess it could have been worse. I could have called them 'cunts'. ;)

[AndrewV69]

Looks like I am going to have to use the "ignore" function if this keeps up ...

[curriejean]

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.

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. As you can see, that's rather rare on teh interwebz, but ...ironically... what a skeptical movement is supposed to be about. I think you are off to a good start at least in my opinion. Take that for what it is worth. And welcome to you!

Like you, I've been getting into (too much) online debate (for my health) for at least 15 years, and while I just can't help it sometimes, I try to leave the insults out until all other avenues are exhausted. 'You'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar' and all that.

I just read about a study today describing the effects of incivility online: "The 'Nasty Effect:' Online Incivility and Risk Perceptions of Emerging Technologies" I think, though I can't find the original article I read. As I understand it, incivility sways the people on both sides of one's stance to become more entrenched in their own positions. So for example, if you're a bitch to others but I agree with your actual point, I'll believe more strongly in our shared point; but if you're a bitch to others and I disagree with your actual point, I'll disagree with that point even more fervently. It's the difference between fighting and arguing: a fight is about the power of the majority/herd, while an argument is about the power of the information in question.

All this applies to varying degrees, of course. As soon as we're aware of the effect and decide not to let it sway/entrench us, it probably won't. And I'm probably preaching to the choir about that.

[Clarence]

Looks like I am going to have to use the "ignore" function if this keeps up ...

Oh, my! Why whomever could you be ignoring and please pray tell why you felt the Need to Announce This Important Message instead, of, you know, just quietly doing it? I mean, I don't know about some of these guys but I'll listen to your complaint. However this sort of thing means I guess we can expect a big Rage Flounce out of you at some point in the future?

[JackSkeptic]

Mistakenly linked twice to the 2012 conference site, and not at all to the 2013 conference site. Please post a request for assistance if you want to see the 2013 (WiS2) site and don't know how to use a search engine. Welch will undoubtedly be "happy" to give tech assistance. :D

I think they were getting well off the path that their mandate demands and for which people paid subscriptions. Equality of the sexes is a given for any organisation that pretends to be respected. It is also a valid area for skeptical enquiry and discussion. Going into areas of dogma, particularly for a Skeptical organisation, is a very dangerous place to go. They knew they had to pull back fast and soon before it got out of hand. So the timing was handed to them as they did not deal with it earlier when they had the chance. And the later you leave it the harder it gets.

Sooner or later ALL organisations, from small local groups to large nationals, will face the same issue.

[Metalogic42]

Welch reminds me of:

[youtube]Rc2jj3D_Ykg[/youtube]

and Clarence reminds me of:

[youtube]fYxCrugJj_o[/youtube]

[ReneeHendricks]

AndrewV69 - super cool pix! I would have been terrified!

Huh! Why? These are only Black Bears and they used to be prey animals (based on the way they behave) so most of the time the wild ones are scared of you (well me anyway) unless you do something silly like run away, which tells them that you are prey and not them.

It's the city gal in me, I suppose. A few years back, when I lived in very suburban Bellevue, WA, we had more than a few inhabitants leave the green belt located at the end of our street to explore the neighborhood. One fine morning, while getting to the car to take my kids to school, I looked up the street to see a very large and very antlered deer meandering down the way. I completed freaked out and ran inside the house. As if the deer was going to chase *me*.

Yeah, so for me, wildlife is awesome in pictures or at the zoo. IRL - I become a shrieking girlie-girl :D

[Metalogic42]

AndrewV69 - super cool pix! I would have been terrified!

Huh! Why? These are only Black Bears and they used to be prey animals (based on the way they behave) so most of the time the wild ones are scared of you (well me anyway) unless you do something silly like run away, which tells them that you are prey and not them.

It's the city gal in me, I suppose. A few years back, when I lived in very suburban Bellevue, WA, we had more than a few inhabitants leave the green belt located at the end of our street to explore the neighborhood. One fine morning, while getting to the car to take my kids to school, I looked up the street to see a very large and very antlered deer meandering down the way. I completed freaked out and ran inside the house. As if the deer was going to chase *me*.

Yeah, so for me, wildlife is awesome in pictures or at the zoo. IRL - I become a shrieking girlie-girl :D

Deer can actually be pretty dangerous when spooked, especially in a populated area.

[Clarence]

Welch reminds me of:

[youtube]Rc2jj3D_Ykg[/youtube]

and Clarence reminds me of:

[youtube]fYxCrugJj_o[/youtube]

And you remind me of :

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PSawC3zdfw[/youtube]

[DeepInsideYourMind]

Deer can actually be pretty dangerous when spooked, especially in a populated area.

And when they have semi-automatic weapons, they are positively scary!

[Metalogic42]

And you remind me of :

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PSawC3zdfw[/youtube]

That's surprisingly accurate, except that I'm older, balder, and fatter.

[ReneeHendricks]

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.

By "tedious" I meant too long, not boring. As I mentioned earlier today, if the post goes much over three or four paragraphs, my attention is completely lost. I tried explaining this to my guy years ago by say it's like my mind is a fast moving train and the switches to put it onto a new track are being flipped constantly.

BIRD!

What was I saying? Oh, yes...

As far as me and important stuff, you obviously missed my posts on "crapping beers" and 55 gallon drums of lube :D

Maybe you need trigger warnings. Also, please do not mention the super seekrit Dungeon with the 55gallons of lube we all found here yesterday. We don't want people jealous. Oh, can I have my whip back please? It has sentimental value.

I have it right here next to my laundry basket of assorted vibrators, dildos, wax, and black vinyl accessories. Oh, and yes, mums the word on the lube ;)

[Skep tickle]

We see black bears frequently when in far northern Idaho, also moose (huge mofo's, apparently nothing to mess with), haven't seen grizzlies though there are reportedly some there.

Scariest couple of minutes for me, wild-animal-wise, was when our German shepherd mix, off leash, treed a bobcat. The cat basically sauntered up the tree, just out of reach, and looked down on the dog like it was thinking, "You know, I don't have to be up in this tree..."

Didn't take too long for the dog to realize that running back to us (where we were yelling at the top of our lungs for him to COME) was a better option than sticking around to see what the cat would do next.

There were other adventures with that dog, like the time on a hike he took off in the hills chasing a couple of elk, could have gotten his head kicked in but they probably outran (or outlasted) him instead.

With our current dog, a lab, the scariest few moments occurred soon after we'd first gotten him (~4 yrs old, from the pound), when I threw a ball out into a lake for him & realized just as I released the ball that there was a canoe going by. Except it turns out it wasn't a canoe, it was a moose (in the water). I figured that would be it for the dog, but he swam out to within about 2 feet of the moose, grabbed the ball, & turned right back for shore like he hadn't even noticed - and luckily the moose just kept going, parallel to the shore.

(Most of the time, our dogs' lives with us have been much more sedate - and safe - than this.)

[nippletwister]

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

Time will tell.

[Clarence]

Warning in advance, this is longer than 1 line. :shifty:

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?

While I fist-pumped at Lindsay's remarks, I have to agree that giving them as the opening remarks to the conference struck me as unusual and inappropriate, in my conference-going experience. But probably not "rogue".

It seems possible that he didn't see a way of bringing up his concerns at another time or venue, and that events before the conference - including the early 2013 "heads" meeting, and more recently some people's public statements before the conference about how Justin V should be prevented from attending - might have given him a progressive sense that he had to do/say something.

On the other hand, 20 minutes for Ron Lindsay's opening remarks were on the WiS2 schedule since the schedule was first posted, I think, whereas in 2012 there was an opening reception but no "opening remarks" (see link below). So maybe he had been planning for quite a while to say *something* that would frame the conference in a more secular or skeptical, less rabbit-hole-of-feminism way.

As someone pointed out, somewhere, this had essentially turned from a "Women in Secularism" conference to a "Feminists in Secularism" conference. One might imagine that that happened mostly through the choices by and message from CFI-DC conference organizer(s) - 3 of the talks have "feminism" in the title" - but interestingly "feminism" seems striking in its absence from the intro on the conference page for 2013: http://www.womeninsecularism.org/2012/schedule.html

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.

Another possibility: there might have been a difference of opinion, or misunderstanding, between what CFI national and CFI-DC envisioned for this conference.

In contrast, the WiS conference in 2012 was billed as focusing on feminism, see the large font here: http://www.womeninsecularism.org/2012/index.html - so at some point along the way between March 2012 & March 2013, some people at CFI including but not necessarily limited to Ron Lindsay decided to emphasize that "feminism" was not to be the focus, or at least not in an unexamined way.

And don't forget that Cornwell was one of the speakers whose talk included "feminism" in the title...and was on the conference schedule from the beginning, too. Lindsay might have, in part, been laying the groundwork for her planned warning not to go down the rabbit hole, and their sandwiching of the conference may have reflected the CFI Board's concerns about that feminist rabbit hole.

But that's all just opinion to start, followed by layers of guesses.

Thanks for taking the time to put this together. Yes, lots of it is speculation, but it seems educated speculation.

[curriejean]

So basically, mocking someone is worse than libeling them. Agree to disagree, I guess. FWIW, people can shop me into whatever picture they want, as long as they don't call me a terrorist.

The first question for me is, how realistic is the 'shoop? If it just looks like some shitty MSPaint job, it's harmless mockery. If it looks like a real photo, it could cross into libelous territory -- not that that means being sexually active before a camera is more shameful than being a terrorist.

His "You really have to ask that?" kind of made me wonder what's so terrible about a cumshot. And his "I've been called a terrorist many times this week" made me wonder why he would think the rarity of an attack would contribute to, rather than detract from, its significance as a legitimate threat. He's refuted himself.

I lost a lot of my admiration for his reasoning last year, when he linked a list of ten things men can do to make women feel more comfortable in secularism on his FB page. One of the list items instructed men to say they agree with women in online comments even when they don't agree with them, because women need the support. How is that possibly not considered misogyny? Women's arguments rest on their merits, not on men coddling our cunts. It's possible the assumption is that if a man disagrees with a woman, it must be because he's a misogynist, not because he doesn't accept the content of her argument on rational grounds. If so, it's an example misandry instead.

[Skep tickle]

And you remind me of :

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PSawC3zdfw[/youtube]

That's surprisingly accurate, except that I'm older, balder, and fatter.

For youtube videos, include just the symbols to the right of the equals sign, so:

[ youtube ] 5PSawC3zdfw [ /youtube ] (without any of the spaces)

[Metalogic42]

I have it right here next to my laundry basket of assorted vibrators, dildos, wax, and black vinyl accessories. Oh, and yes, mums the word on the lube ;)

You forgot to mention the sybian.

[sacha]

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.

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.

:doh: :doh: :doh:

Oh my! You struck me with an acronym that assumes stupidity on my part, and I struck back very mildly. Heck, I even offered you a graceful way out by asking you to show your mad tek skillz off so I could grant you Tech Buddha status. Aren't I just such a horrible person for refusing to bow and scrape at your feet when you insult me? My what an UTTER HYPOCRITE I WOULD BE ...IF my argument had been that it was the never appropriate to call names when somebody calls you names first.

D'oh. The lack of logic here ...hurts.

it's Eucli's younger brother

[Clarence]

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

Time will tell.

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

[Metalogic42]

So basically, mocking someone is worse than libeling them. Agree to disagree, I guess. FWIW, people can shop me into whatever picture they want, as long as they don't call me a terrorist.

The first question for me is, how realistic is the 'shoop? If it just looks like some shitty MSPaint job, it's harmless mockery. If it looks like a real photo, it could cross into libelous territory -- not that that means being sexually active before a camera is more shameful than being a terrorist.

His "You really have to ask that?" kind of made me wonder what's so terrible about a cumshot. And his "I've been called a terrorist many times this week" made me wonder why he would think the rarity of an attack would contribute to, rather than detract from, its significance as a legitimate threat. He's refuted himself.

I lost a lot of my admiration for his reasoning last year, when he linked a list of ten things men can do to make women feel more comfortable in secularism on his FB page. One of the list items instructed men to say they agree with women in online comments even when they don't agree with them, because women need the support. How is that possibly not considered misogyny? Women's arguments rest on their merits, not on men coddling our cunts. It's possible the assumption is that if a man disagrees with a woman, it must be because he's a misogynist, not because he doesn't accept the content of her argument on rational grounds. If so, it's an example misandry instead.

Can we coddle your cunts anyway? :whistle:

[zenbabe]

How long until I get hate mail?

Oh well done and well said, Skepticake.

Was also fun that you worked in a reference to JV's 'stache. Hehe

[sacha]

Looks like I am going to have to use the "ignore" function if this keeps up ...

*yawn* - if no one engages him, he will tire and go away

[Metalogic42]

it's Eucli's younger brother

[youtube]CBJZwYpHUBo[/youtube]

[bovarchist]

OK now y'all are starting to remind me of:

[youtube]EXPcBI4CJc8[/youtube]

Well, not really, I just think any time is a good time for Garfunkel and Oates.

[Metalogic42]

Looks like I am going to have to use the "ignore" function if this keeps up ...

*yawn* - if no one engages him, he will tire and go away

But it's so much fun to get him all riled up...

[Clarence]

it's Eucli's younger brother

Whoever that is.
Then again, this IS the pit and there are some feminists and probably a few OOLON sock puppets lurking about...

[ReneeHendricks]

So basically, mocking someone is worse than libeling them. Agree to disagree, I guess. FWIW, people can shop me into whatever picture they want, as long as they don't call me a terrorist.

The first question for me is, how realistic is the 'shoop? If it just looks like some shitty MSPaint job, it's harmless mockery. If it looks like a real photo, it could cross into libelous territory -- not that that means being sexually active before a camera is more shameful than being a terrorist.

His "You really have to ask that?" kind of made me wonder what's so terrible about a cumshot. And his "I've been called a terrorist many times this week" made me wonder why he would think the rarity of an attack would contribute to, rather than detract from, its significance as a legitimate threat. He's refuted himself.

I lost a lot of my admiration for his reasoning last year, when he linked a list of ten things men can do to make women feel more comfortable in secularism on his FB page. One of the list items instructed men to say they agree with women in online comments even when they don't agree with them, because women need the support. How is that possibly not considered misogyny? Women's arguments rest on their merits, not on men coddling our cunts. It's possible the assumption is that if a man disagrees with a woman, it must be because he's a misogynist, not because he doesn't accept the content of her argument on rational grounds. If so, it's an example misandry instead.

What?? I'd be so pissed if some guy agreed with me simply because I'm a woman. I don't need placating or coddling. Disagree with me and tell me why or move the fuck along. I had the feeling Silverman was a bit of an ass but had no idea he longs to firmly wedge his nose up feminists' asses.

[Clarence]

Looks like I am going to have to use the "ignore" function if this keeps up ...

*yawn* - if no one engages him, he will tire and go away

But it's so much fun to get him all riled up...

Actually, I've been laughing most of the past half hour. Most of the trolling you are doing is amusing.

Anyway, do what you want. It's a bit after midnight here and I have a few things to do before I trundle into my bed.

[ReneeHendricks]

I have it right here next to my laundry basket of assorted vibrators, dildos, wax, and black vinyl accessories. Oh, and yes, mums the word on the lube ;)

You forgot to mention the sybian.

It's out for repairs :D

[Skep tickle]

So basically, mocking someone is worse than libeling them. Agree to disagree, I guess. FWIW, people can shop me into whatever picture they want, as long as they don't call me a terrorist.

The first question for me is, how realistic is the 'shoop? If it just looks like some shitty MSPaint job, it's harmless mockery. If it looks like a real photo, it could cross into libelous territory -- not that that means being sexually active before a camera is more shameful than being a terrorist.

His "You really have to ask that?" kind of made me wonder what's so terrible about a cumshot. And his "I've been called a terrorist many times this week" made me wonder why he would think the rarity of an attack would contribute to, rather than detract from, its significance as a legitimate threat. He's refuted himself.

I lost a lot of my admiration for his reasoning last year, when he linked a list of ten things men can do to make women feel more comfortable in secularism on his FB page. One of the list items instructed men to say they agree with women in online comments even when they don't agree with them, because women need the support. How is that possibly not considered misogyny? Women's arguments rest on their merits, not on men coddling our cunts. It's possible the assumption is that if a man disagrees with a woman, it must be because he's a misogynist, not because he doesn't accept the content of her argument on rational grounds. If so, it's an example misandry instead.

Agreed, his measure doesn't make any sense. So if photoshopped cumshots occurred more frequently than accusations of terrorism, the order in which he ranked them would reverse?? :shock:

Anyone know about these purported accusations of terrorism? He goes on TV shows so is a visible face of atheism, definitely could see people telling him he's going to hell and maybe saying they'd help him get there (as a threat), but I'm not readily imaging what accusations of terrorism would be made against him. (Which unfortunately is not the same thing as not believing it could be the case...) Is it anything more imaginative or threatening than "You atheist terrorist!" kind of stuff?

[Clarence]

So basically, mocking someone is worse than libeling them. Agree to disagree, I guess. FWIW, people can shop me into whatever picture they want, as long as they don't call me a terrorist.

The first question for me is, how realistic is the 'shoop? If it just looks like some shitty MSPaint job, it's harmless mockery. If it looks like a real photo, it could cross into libelous territory -- not that that means being sexually active before a camera is more shameful than being a terrorist.

His "You really have to ask that?" kind of made me wonder what's so terrible about a cumshot. And his "I've been called a terrorist many times this week" made me wonder why he would think the rarity of an attack would contribute to, rather than detract from, its significance as a legitimate threat. He's refuted himself.

I lost a lot of my admiration for his reasoning last year, when he linked a list of ten things men can do to make women feel more comfortable in secularism on his FB page. One of the list items instructed men to say they agree with women in online comments even when they don't agree with them, because women need the support. How is that possibly not considered misogyny? Women's arguments rest on their merits, not on men coddling our cunts. It's possible the assumption is that if a man disagrees with a woman, it must be because he's a misogynist, not because he doesn't accept the content of her argument on rational grounds. If so, it's an example misandry instead.

What?? I'd be so pissed if some guy agreed with me simply because I'm a woman. I don't need placating or coddling. Disagree with me and tell me why or move the fuck along. I had the feeling Silverman was a bit of an ass but had no idea he longs to firmly wedge his nose up feminists' asses.

Just to clarify from earlier I don't consider being funny a 'negative' on this forum. I read the review by that guy and nearly died laughing. Heck, even some of MY detractors here at least have a funny bone. So humor will never be a strike against you in my book, Renee.

[Metalogic42]

I have it right here next to my laundry basket of assorted vibrators, dildos, wax, and black vinyl accessories. Oh, and yes, mums the word on the lube ;)

You forgot to mention the sybian.

It's out for repairs :D

You broke it????






...impressive.

[Skep tickle]

...

I lost a lot of my admiration for his reasoning last year, when he linked a list of ten things men can do to make women feel more comfortable in secularism on his FB page. One of the list items instructed men to say they agree with women in online comments even when they don't agree with them, because women need the support. How is that possibly not considered misogyny? Women's arguments rest on their merits, not on men coddling our cunts. It's possible the assumption is that if a man disagrees with a woman, it must be because he's a misogynist, not because he doesn't accept the content of her argument on rational grounds. If so, it's an example misandry instead.

What?? I'd be so pissed if some guy agreed with me simply because I'm a woman. I don't need placating or coddling. Disagree with me and tell me why or move the fuck along.

Yes, Renee dear. I'm sure you're right about that. *pat, pat*

(Actually: YES!!! ^^This!!!1!1!!! etc)

I had the feeling Silverman was a bit of an ass but had no idea he longs to firmly wedge his nose up feminists' asses.

Photoshop not needed; imagination supplied that image upon reading, thankyouverymuchNOT :D

[Skep tickle]

Hello to the 59 current guests.

[Percentage]

From Thimbledick's blog:

Those sorts of re-fighting the same territory with little added value are a distraction, certainly, but they are not themselves exemplar of any sort of abrogation of “civility” of the sort decried in the Open Letter that is supposedly epidemic in our movement except that they themselves claim to be members of our community of skeptics, and/or are names that have long been associated with fighting these specific fights.

Maybe I'm just stupid, but can anyone else parse this word salad?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I live in the woods, and a few years back had a 400 lb. black bear on my front porch, chowing down on some dog food I'd forgotten to put away. I did the reasonable thing* and impulsively charged him, hollering, and chased him back into the woods. The next night, the bear returned, and I chased him again, banging on a kitchen pot this time. The bears have stayed away since.

* (But I'm nuts.)

[curriejean]

So basically, mocking someone is worse than libeling them. Agree to disagree, I guess. FWIW, people can shop me into whatever picture they want, as long as they don't call me a terrorist.

The first question for me is, how realistic is the 'shoop? If it just looks like some shitty MSPaint job, it's harmless mockery. If it looks like a real photo, it could cross into libelous territory -- not that that means being sexually active before a camera is more shameful than being a terrorist.

His "You really have to ask that?" kind of made me wonder what's so terrible about a cumshot. And his "I've been called a terrorist many times this week" made me wonder why he would think the rarity of an attack would contribute to, rather than detract from, its significance as a legitimate threat. He's refuted himself.

I lost a lot of my admiration for his reasoning last year, when he linked a list of ten things men can do to make women feel more comfortable in secularism on his FB page. One of the list items instructed men to say they agree with women in online comments even when they don't agree with them, because women need the support. How is that possibly not considered misogyny? Women's arguments rest on their merits, not on men coddling our cunts. It's possible the assumption is that if a man disagrees with a woman, it must be because he's a misogynist, not because he doesn't accept the content of her argument on rational grounds. If so, it's an example misandry instead.

Can we coddle your cunts anyway? :whistle:

All my cunts are belong to you.

What?? I'd be so pissed if some guy agreed with me simply because I'm a woman. I don't need placating or coddling. Disagree with me and tell me why or move the fuck along. I had the feeling Silverman was a bit of an ass but had no idea he longs to firmly wedge his nose up feminists' asses.

Exactly. I left a pretty long, rather harsh comment at the time. He had just congratulated me on some local activism, so it was an emotional-whiplashy experience (Was he only supportive because I'm a woman? Ick). I really wish I could find the exact post, or had at least screencapped it. I searched for it today to add to the evidence of the "shut up and listen to feminists" approach infecting some prominent secularists as pointed out by Ron Lindsay, but I couldn't get FB to search so far back.

Agreed, his measure doesn't make any sense. So if photoshopped cumshots occurred more frequently than accusations of terrorism, the order in which he ranked them would reverse?? :shock:

Anyone know about these purported accusations of terrorism? He goes on TV shows so is a visible face of atheism, definitely could see people telling him he's going to hell and maybe saying they'd help him get there (as a threat), but I'm not readily imaging what accusations of terrorism would be made against him. (Which unfortunately is not the same thing as not believing it could be the case...) Is it anything more imaginative or threatening than "You atheist terrorist!" kind of stuff?

That, I'm not actually really surprised about, though it's probably all/mostly just harmless hatemail. It's the whole "religious war" mindset around the subject of terrorism. You're either with the Christians or you're supporting the terrorists.

Which, come to think of it, is why I'm still kind of surprised at Dave for using a "Either you fight the 'shit' or you're supporting the 'shit'" (paraphrased) approach in his discussion with Vacula on twitter today. It's just another divisive "with us or against us" tactic. He should know from his own experience that disagreements tend to have many more than two starkly-opposing sides. Unless he really IS a terrorist! :shock:

OK now y'all are starting to remind me of:

(((sex with ducks)))

Well, not really, I just think any time is a good time for Garfunkel and Oates.

YES. Yes it is. This one goes out to all the skeevy 'shoopers out there.

[youtube]pbaFsyfeOBo[youtube]

[curriejean]

Gah! My punch line!

[youtube]pbaFsyfeOBo[/youtube]

[Skep tickle]

From Thimbledick's blog:

Those sorts of re-fighting the same territory with little added value are a distraction, certainly, but they are not themselves exemplar of any sort of abrogation of “civility” of the sort decried in the Open Letter that is supposedly epidemic in our movement except that they themselves claim to be members of our community of skeptics, and/or are names that have long been associated with fighting these specific fights.

Maybe I'm just stupid, but can anyone else parse this word salad?

Does he always write such long complicated sentences? I didn't locate the line above at the link, but there are plenty of others like it*.

I think the one you quoted says this, in other words (except that it doesn't make sense, which is why I checked quickly to see if I could see it in context):

"There was an Open Letter that decried loss of "civility", saying it was supposedly epidemic in our movement. People going back over the same territory without adding things are a distraction, but that's not necessarily an example of that loss of civility, except that they are well-known names that have long fought those same specific fights, or they claim to be members of the skeptic community" - ??

Here's another that caught my eye, repeating the same damn claim about feminism & skepticism:

Melody reminds people that none of these folks are CFI conference attendees, donating zero dollars at said events, and that they’ve been working the hardest at dividing the movement and driving wedges between feminism and skepticism — as though those aren’t the same damn thing, with feminism focused on skepticism about traditional gender roles and power structures in society

[ReneeHendricks]

I have it right here next to my laundry basket of assorted vibrators, dildos, wax, and black vinyl accessories. Oh, and yes, mums the word on the lube ;)

You forgot to mention the sybian.

It's out for repairs :D

You broke it????






...impressive.

Never underestimate the power of my thighs.

Actually, this is all quite humorous as I've actually tried a sybian once and won't do it again. Entirely too much, um, stimulus for me to handle. I nearly blacked out.

[KiwiInOz]

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.

Psst. [whisper] Don't take yourself, or anybody else here, too seriously. [/whisper]

[ReneeHendricks]

From Thimbledick's blog:

Those sorts of re-fighting the same territory with little added value are a distraction, certainly, but they are not themselves exemplar of any sort of abrogation of “civility” of the sort decried in the Open Letter that is supposedly epidemic in our movement except that they themselves claim to be members of our community of skeptics, and/or are names that have long been associated with fighting these specific fights.

Maybe I'm just stupid, but can anyone else parse this word salad?

Shit! That is one long, screwed up sentence. The urge to break it apart and fix it is sooooo great.

Funny. I just read that blog post and completely missed that English teacher's nightmare.

[Skep tickle]

From Thimbledick's blog:

Those sorts of re-fighting the same territory with little added value are a distraction, certainly, but they are not themselves exemplar of any sort of abrogation of “civility” of the sort decried in the Open Letter that is supposedly epidemic in our movement except that they themselves claim to be members of our community of skeptics, and/or are names that have long been associated with fighting these specific fights.

Maybe I'm just stupid, but can anyone else parse this word salad?

Found it; here it is with the surrounding sections, which may help:

A lot of comments are civil enough about their contrafactual takes on human history and the existence of gender imbalances in our present Western society, and are worthy of smacking down in the same way that one might smack down the hundredth time someone smarmily demands us to explain why there are monkeys if evolution is true. Those sorts of re-fighting the same territory with little added value are a distraction, certainly, but they are not themselves exemplar of any sort of abrogation of “civility” of the sort decried in the Open Letter that is supposedly epidemic in our movement except that they themselves claim to be members of our community of skeptics, and/or are names that have long been associated with fighting these specific fights.

For instance, we have Elevatorgate posting about his Storifys and his having misappropriated the womeninsecularism.com domain to post a vitriol-filled “parody” site. The same guy that ostensibly Lindsay should be going after for misappropriating and attempting to destroy the Women In Secularism “brand” had this to say about Ron:...

Okay, well that changes it. "Those sorts of re-fighting" are the boring smack-downs of erroneous gender-history that the feminists repeatedly have to do because the anti-feminists are as clueless as creationists. Uh, so those smackdowns aren't abrogations of civility, except that the clueless ones are "big names" or claim to be skeptics, so therefore the righteous feminist smackdowns of cluelessness are (incorrectly) called uncivil, solely because of who they're aimed at??

I'm just guessing. You're right, it's difficult to decipher. But then I'm as clueless as a creationist, apparently. :D

[Voryn]

From Thimbledick's blog:

Those sorts of re-fighting the same territory with little added value are a distraction, certainly, but they are not themselves exemplar of any sort of abrogation of “civility” of the sort decried in the Open Letter that is supposedly epidemic in our movement except that they themselves claim to be members of our community of skeptics, and/or are names that have long been associated with fighting these specific fights.

Maybe I'm just stupid, but can anyone else parse this word salad?

I, err, translated it to this..
When we argue over the same issues that don't have much value they are distracting. However, these arguments are not showing that civility is abolished, the kind that is discussed in the open-letter (which is supposedly an epidemic within the movement.) But these people claim to be members of the skeptic community and/or are people that have been associated with fighting skeptical fights.

I might be stupid too... fuck it I'm stealing Lsuoma's translation.
http://gumbercules.com/WHARGARBL.jpg

[AndrewV69]

AndrewV69 - super cool pix! I would have been terrified!

Huh! Why? These are only Black Bears and they used to be prey animals (based on the way they behave) so most of the time the wild ones are scared of you (well me anyway) unless you do something silly like run away, which tells them that you are prey and not them.

It's the city gal in me, I suppose. A few years back, when I lived in very suburban Bellevue, WA, we had more than a few inhabitants leave the green belt located at the end of our street to explore the neighborhood. One fine morning, while getting to the car to take my kids to school, I looked up the street to see a very large and very antlered deer meandering down the way. I completed freaked out and ran inside the house. As if the deer was going to chase *me*.

Yeah, so for me, wildlife is awesome in pictures or at the zoo. IRL - I become a shrieking girlie-girl :D

Deer can actually be pretty dangerous when spooked, especially in a populated area.

The deer around here are fairly "tame" but I still treat them with the same caution and respect as I do with the bears. In case people are unaware of this a doe will hoof you if she believes it to be appropriate. Need I mention that will do major damage?

This is not Bambi. She is perfectly capable of fucking you up:

DSCF0181-640x640.jpg

(98.78 KiB) Downloaded 136 times

I gently shooed her away after she ate around half of these:

DSCF0168-640x640.jpg

(51.79 KiB) Downloaded 127 times

Because Ilike looking at them and I figured half was "fair".

[Skep tickle]

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4765: "A possible reason for celebrities smearing A+"

Thread started by new member jimhabegger. FrogSaga (h/t Apples) weighs in.

[bovarchist]

From Thimbledick's blog:

Those sorts of re-fighting the same territory with little added value are a distraction, certainly, but they are not themselves exemplar of any sort of abrogation of “civility” of the sort decried in the Open Letter that is supposedly epidemic in our movement except that they themselves claim to be members of our community of skeptics, and/or are names that have long been associated with fighting these specific fights.

Maybe I'm just stupid, but can anyone else parse this word salad?

Honey, the haiku's been eating my steroids again.