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

Ericb wrote:PZ's book is supposed to be published in August. I don't know how Amazon moderates its review board but I doubt PZ will have any control over the page. The commentary there could prove to be interesting.

cunt wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:

Remick wrote:I don't think Justin is a bad guy, I just figured he wouldn't keep making the same stupid mistakes by now. Since he hasn't seemed to figure it out really, I would prefer he shut the fuck up publicly, maybe take a fucking debate class, SOMETHING to learn how to not fall for so many obvious traps before he continues to keep such a public profile.

It is a simple problem really. Most people know fuck all of about skepchic, they just know Rebecca Watson, Most people don't know fuck all about FTB, but they might have some awareness of PZ myers. Most people don't know fuck all about the slymepit, but the baboons will be quick to point out something stupid Justin did or said and have it represent all of us. It sucks, and we can restate "no one represents the pit" but that doesn't make it true. We don't always get to decide that shit.

The worst true accusations about the slymepit are all associated with things that Vacula has himself done - doxxing Surly Amy, along with a photo of her apartment, writing an article for AVFM and speaking with them while failing to confront them over the really shitty things they do (i.e. their hit list), the constant pestering of Ophelia Benson by tweeting @her.
I agree than none of these things are particularly bad themselves but they only serve to give ammunition to his detractors.

Agreed and the most annoying thing about all that is that Justin, for the longest time, essentially just used the slymepit as a dumping ground for links about Justin.

I'll give him this though. Asking for $1500 for another conference just over 2 weeks after he got $3500 for Dublin proves without a doubt that he's sitting on balls the size of space-hoppers.

Pardon me. He didn't say "listen to the woman."

He linked to an article where the author said, "Write, 'I think you're right' in Comments sections of articles, Facebook postings etc. of feminist women. Whether or not they’ve been harassed or attacked, agree with them and do so publicly."

viewtopic.php?p=94278#p94278

So, really, what David Silverman should have done in response to AJ Johnson was to say, "I think you're right" instead of doubting her word.

<blockquote>You’re being pedantic. Many, if not most, of the people in that audience were feminists. Certainly most of the speakers were. He was lecturing them by pretending that they weren’t aware that there are many approaches to feminism and by talking about privilege like he knows what it means despite his definition clashing with the common one that most of the people in that room not only know, but practice.</blockquote>

It doesn't matter if "many, if not most" of the people there were feminists, now does it? He wasn't "lecturing" them. He was talking about problems of abusing the concept of privilege and using it to shut people up, which ironically is exactly what transpired after his speech on Twitter, Facebook, etc. Also, when preparing a speech, there's no guarantee that everyone in the audience would be familiar with the subject matter, so you write as if most do not -- which is a common practice as an orator -- and which is something most speakers were likely familiar with. It is stupid as hell to go after Ron Lindsay simply because he didn't speak of feminism and its practices as though they were infallible.

So what if they were aware of it. How many times have you heard speakers attending a secularist convention or conference, speak of atheism and the importance of critical thinking as though the audience were not DULY informed of it already? Were they lecturing the audience, too?

And do they practice it? Many who were speakers at this year's WiS have several times abused the concept of privilege to silence others. "White privilege", "white male privilege", "able-bodied privilege", "heterosexual privilege", the list goes on and on and on. And any who shall challenge their view gets labelled "misogynist", "rape enabler", "rape apologist", etc.

<blockquote>And the problem with this is that, despite the insistence of people like you and Lindsay, no mainstream liberal feminist (which is the majority of ones in the atheist movement) thinks there is one true feminism. None of them. They certainly argue for how they think it should be interpreted, but that’s kind of how a discussion happens.</blockquote>

Oh poppycock. Ever heard of Christina Hoff Sommers? She coined the definitions 'gender feminism' and 'equity feminism.' If you say you're an equity feminist on, say, FtB, not only would they disagree - by implying you condone the harassment of women, or that you think women should stay in the kitchen, or that you think 'bitches ain't shit' - but if you stay firm to your view, they would ban you. They certainly don't allow any kind of discussion about it, at least not a long one.

For any of the more ideological ones, like PZ Myers, Ophelia Benson, Stephanie Zvan, Greta Christina or Jason Thibeault, any dissent and you get immediately sent into moderation or banned. Depends on how strongly you expressed yourself. Any opposition to feminism, banned. Any opposition to gender feminism, banned. Any questions and you're 'JAQing off' and if you continue arguing, you're banned. At least they're consistent.

<blockquote>And the problem with this is that, despite the insistence of people like you and Lindsay, no mainstream liberal feminist (which is the majority of ones in the atheist movement) thinks there is one true feminism. None of them. They certainly argue for how they think it should be interpreted, but that’s kind of how a discussion happens. Also, stop scare quoting “sister punishers.” The only people who use that phrase seem to be assholes who are trying to strawman feminism. Same goes for “gender traitor”.</blockquote>

Really?

On "sister punisher":

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-173203

Melody Hensley:
<blockquote>"This is what you call a sister punisher, a woman who turns on other women to gain favor of sexist men."</blockquote>

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/ ... ment-71670
Melody:
<blockquote>"With all of the sister-punishers out there like Abbie Smith and Miranda Celeste Hale, we should also add a #womencallmethings."</blockquote>

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/ ... ment-71722
SC (Salty Current), OM
<blockquote>"'Sister-punisher' is great, and I will use it from now on."</blockquote>

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/ ... ment-71785
<blockquote>"Rupert McClanahan @ #28 and SantasLittleHelper generally: Your comments are in violation of my comment policy. Personal insults towards other commenters are prohibited, as is being unpleasant, nasty, snide, sarcastic. This is your one and only warning. Further violations will result in you being banned from this blog."</blockquote>

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/ ... ment-71850
Santa's Little Helper to Greta Christina:
<blockquote>"You forgot to mention SC and Melody – they used personal insults as well.

Stay consistent, Greta.

Also, libel is in violation of your comment policy. Yet that person was not banned AFAIA."</blockquote>

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/ ... ment-71940
Rupert Mclanahan to Greta Christina:
<blockquote><blockquote>"'Rupert McClanahan @ #28 and SantasLittleHelper generally: Your comments are in violation of my comment policy. Personal insults towards other commenters are prohibited, as is being unpleasant, nasty, snide, sarcastic. This is your one and only warning. Further violations will result in you being banned from this blog.'"</blockquote>

'I think I was just being accurate and descriptive. Apparently when you don’t like the statement, it is insulting, unpleasant, snide, and sarcastic. <b>On the other hand, comment #1 (Melody), right off the bat called people sister-punishers in an off-topic comment!</b> Greta, your post didn’t even mention Abbie Smith and Miranda Celeste Hale to my reading, <b>and yet it is A-OK for this Melody person (still convinced she is a Poe) to start trashing them in post #1, to totally derail the comments</b> and make this all about herself, in addition to Abbie Smith and Miranda Celeste Hale (who, as far as I am able to tell, did not bring a dog to this particular fight).

Sigh.'"</blockquote>

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/ ... ment-72022
Greta Christina:
<blockquote>"Rupert McClanahan has explicitly stated that he will not respect my comment policy. He has therefore been banned."</blockquote>

http://web.archive.org/web/200508260227 ... kinda.html
Amanda Marcotte:
<blockquote>"Enter the Sister Punisher, a woman whose willingness to turn on other women to curry the favor of sexist men knows no bounds."</blockquote>

http://books.google.se/books?id=289AF8F ... te&f=false

On "chill girl":


Melody Hensley:
<blockquote>"Women that play the "chill girl" and put down feminists to gain approval from men."</blockquote>

Sara Mayhew on Melody Hensley:
<blockquote>"Melody Hensley doesn’t like people labelling her “professional victim” just because she disagrees. Wants Ben to “own up”. But she called me a chill girl, known sexist, and claimed that women ‘rag on’ Skepchicks just to try and get male attention (heteronormal much?). Did she own up? No. She’s never apologised—just blocks ppl.

CFI should be ashamed to have a director who organises WiS but accuses smart young women, like Miranda Celeste Hale, of getting speaking gigs not because they earned it, but because they suck up to men."</blockquote>

http://elevatorgate.wordpress.com/2013/ ... l-epithet/
Melody Hensley on the term "chill girl":
<blockquote>"It's a good descriptive term. I could spell it out in a couple of sentences, but why should I?"</blockquote>

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=677
Greta Christina on the Atheism Plus forum discussing the merits of "chill girl."

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... ueen-bees/
Stephanie Zvan:
<blockquote>"How do you know whether you’re a chill girl? Simple. Is your reaction to complaints from other women of harassment and discrimination based on gender to turn to the guys and say, “Nah, I’m fine. It’s all cool”? Then you’re a chill girl."</blockquote>

On "gender traitor":

http://skeptifem.blogspot.se/2011/07/in ... aitor.html

Was interviewed by Teen Skepchick:
http://www.skepticink.com/skepticallyle ... -698254915

http://teenskepchick.org/2011/07/14/tee ... skeptifem/

Just Paula Kirby, you say? Indeed.

Hopefully that's enough basket of links to satisfy you. By the way, like before, I'm going to document this in case it gets either edited or memoryholed. Cheerio.

Remick wrote:

cunt wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:

Remick wrote:I don't think Justin is a bad guy, I just figured he wouldn't keep making the same stupid mistakes by now. Since he hasn't seemed to figure it out really, I would prefer he shut the fuck up publicly, maybe take a fucking debate class, SOMETHING to learn how to not fall for so many obvious traps before he continues to keep such a public profile.

It is a simple problem really. Most people know fuck all of about skepchic, they just know Rebecca Watson, Most people don't know fuck all about FTB, but they might have some awareness of PZ myers. Most people don't know fuck all about the slymepit, but the baboons will be quick to point out something stupid Justin did or said and have it represent all of us. It sucks, and we can restate "no one represents the pit" but that doesn't make it true. We don't always get to decide that shit.

The worst true accusations about the slymepit are all associated with things that Vacula has himself done - doxxing Surly Amy, along with a photo of her apartment, writing an article for AVFM and speaking with them while failing to confront them over the really shitty things they do (i.e. their hit list), the constant pestering of Ophelia Benson by tweeting @her.
I agree than none of these things are particularly bad themselves but they only serve to give ammunition to his detractors.

Agreed and the most annoying thing about all that is that Justin, for the longest time, essentially just used the slymepit as a dumping ground for links about Justin.

I'll give him this though. Asking for $1500 for another conference just over 2 weeks after he got $3500 for Dublin proves without a doubt that he's sitting on balls the size of space-hoppers.

Why? What is the downside? He doesn't get the money? We make fun of him more than we already do? Is this what makes Justin a #BraveHero?

This is basically how I read Justin's posts for the most part:

[youtube]2RqWpWtYU[/yoube]

Gumby wrote:

Ericb wrote:PZ's book is supposed to be published in August. I don't know how Amazon moderates its review board but I doubt PZ will have any control over the page. The commentary there could prove to be interesting.

Hopefully the comments will be honest and mainly by people who have actually read the book. Anything else is childish trolling.

I'm actually hoping It's a good book. He used to write pretty well when he wanted to back before he turned into a self-styled feminist messiah, and I'm not going to wish failure on his book just because of his current douchiness.

another lurker wrote:

Gumby wrote:

Ericb wrote:PZ's book is supposed to be published in August. I don't know how Amazon moderates its review board but I doubt PZ will have any control over the page. The commentary there could prove to be interesting.

Hopefully the comments will be honest and mainly by people who have actually read the book. Anything else is childish trolling.

I'm actually hoping It's a good book. He used to write pretty well when he wanted to back before he turned into a self-styled feminist messiah, and I'm not going to wish failure on his book just because of his current douchiness.

Gumby, stop insulting PZ by taking the high road and refusing to behave like the evil 'Pitter he so wants you to be!

And FFS, stop harassing Ophelia by not talking about her!

Percentage wrote: The number two is obviously Watson, and she definitely has her own cadre of sycophants, but she just doesn't have the legitimacy that Myers does. Watson's weakness is that this SJW crap is really her only claim to fame; fairly or not, a lot of people sort of perceive her as a one-trick pony. PZ is a credentialed scientist, he's known for his intelligent and informative posts on biology, he's been a major contributor to anti-creationist efforts; bascially, he was a big name before Elevatorgate. Watson is notable mostly by chance and the fact that Myers supports her.

Although at the same time, the SJW train has left the station at this point. People are into the idea, and they would rally even without their Maximum Leader. So I think that if Myers dropped out, it would be roughly akin to cutting the head off of something that could grow it back.

Dick Strawkins wrote:

Voryn wrote:http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2013 ... supported/

JT has a very long post up about the CFI Kerfluffle. I'm not done reading it yet, but I've learned that Vacula is our cruel-hearted chieftain. JT has spent a good amount of the post covering his ass by saying how evil we all are. What I find really interesting is that JT and Justin are actually a lot more alike than they realize, but on different sides of the spectrum, and that includes the fact that Vacula is far less hardcore/angry. Anyway, it's a bit amusing how much he has to say he hates us, we'll see if that works in his favor..

Hail Chieftain Vacula!!(?)

:lol:

I also think that most of the people who inhabit the slymepit are, well, slime. I read some of their comments upon my engagement and it was elementary school rage at a social enemy’s happiness all over again. I have no love for that group. Chief among them is Justin Vacula who I consider to be one of the most childish, obtuse, and despicable atheists on the planet. He’s a cruel person and I don’t like him. I’m not here to defend Justin Vacula or his ilk.

I'm no ilk of Vacula! :hand:

That whole post was hilarious.
Justin Vacula is the most despicable person in all of atheism?
Stalin and Pol Pot anyone?

What a maroon! :D

cunt wrote:

Percentage wrote: The number two is obviously Watson, and she definitely has her own cadre of sycophants, but she just doesn't have the legitimacy that Myers does. Watson's weakness is that this SJW crap is really her only claim to fame; fairly or not, a lot of people sort of perceive her as a one-trick pony. PZ is a credentialed scientist, he's known for his intelligent and informative posts on biology, he's been a major contributor to anti-creationist efforts; bascially, he was a big name before Elevatorgate. Watson is notable mostly by chance and the fact that Myers supports her.

Although at the same time, the SJW train has left the station at this point. People are into the idea, and they would rally even without their Maximum Leader. So I think that if Myers dropped out, it would be roughly akin to cutting the head off of something that could grow it back.

It's not her only claim to fame. That would be The Skeptics Guide To The Universe. Also, it's bullshit to imply that only people who have serious academic credentials should be respected. What really matters is whether or not somebody is right.

This post is one of the longest nonsense arguments I have read in a very, very long time.

The phrase "with hunt" is metaphorical, figurative, and allegorical.

The "witch" is the target, whomever (even whatever) that may be.

The "fire" is the vilification/denunciation.

Surely you are educated enough, and smart enough to understand that.

Dick Strawkins wrote:

cunt wrote:

Percentage wrote: The number two is obviously Watson, and she definitely has her own cadre of sycophants, but she just doesn't have the legitimacy that Myers does. Watson's weakness is that this SJW crap is really her only claim to fame; fairly or not, a lot of people sort of perceive her as a one-trick pony. PZ is a credentialed scientist, he's known for his intelligent and informative posts on biology, he's been a major contributor to anti-creationist efforts; bascially, he was a big name before Elevatorgate. Watson is notable mostly by chance and the fact that Myers supports her.

Although at the same time, the SJW train has left the station at this point. People are into the idea, and they would rally even without their Maximum Leader. So I think that if Myers dropped out, it would be roughly akin to cutting the head off of something that could grow it back.

It's not her only claim to fame. That would be The Skeptics Guide To The Universe. Also, it's bullshit to imply that only people who have serious academic credentials should be respected. What really matters is whether or not somebody is right.

The Skeptics Guide to the Universe is really the Steve Novello show. Can you imagine Watson doing it on her own? She tried something similar when she moved to the UK but she simply doesnt have the ability or knowledge to make it work.
The thing that gets to me about her is the fact that she's had two years now of the spotlight, of opportunities to speak and people who were listening.
But what did we get?
New ideas? Progressive plans for the future?
Aggressive promotion of secularism and the protection of reproductive rights from religious attack?
No, none of these.
All we got was a constant rerun of that fucking elevator story and more promotion of troll messages to her.
She's had the chance to make a difference but she chose to play the elevator tape-loop.

cunt wrote:

justinvacula wrote:Many have asked whether I would be attending TAM and have also encouraged me to attend TAM.

I've evaluated my options and explored what the costs would be if I were to start a low-estimate fundraiser which would assist in my attendance. I'd be interested -- once again -- in seeking interviews, live-tweeting, and providing some of the first liveradio reporting via Brave Hero Radio. I also would provide various additional perks to donors. The fundraiser goal would be the same as the goal I had set for #WIScfi.

Here are the results:

Estimated costs:
Registration - $375
Hotel - $360
Flight - $511
Food and misc. expenses - $150
Fundraising cut of 4 to 8%

Total: $1500

Thoughts?

What a surprise.

John Greg wrote:I could not just stand back and watch Cromm present such incredibley vacuous and mendacious arguments regarding witch hunts without commenting. Zvan tried to do the same nonsense several months ago: without a witch, and without fire, there is no witch hunt.

Fucking disingenuous morons.

So I posted this (http://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/ ... ent-168076):

This post is one of the longest nonsense arguments I have read in a very, very long time.

The phrase "with hunt" is metaphorical, figurative, and allegorical.

The "witch" is the target, whomever (even whatever) that may be.

The "fire" is the vilification/denunciation.

Surely you are educated enough, and smart enough to understand that.

My comment has been posted, but I doubt it will survive.

John Greg wrote:I could not just stand back and watch Cromm present such incredibley vacuous and mendacious arguments regarding witch hunts without commenting. Zvan tried to do the same nonsense several months ago: without a witch, and without fire, there is no witch hunt.

Fucking disingenuous morons.

So I posted this (http://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/ ... ent-168076):

This post is one of the longest nonsense arguments I have read in a very, very long time.
<snip>
Surely you are educated enough, and smart enough to understand that.

My comment has been posted, but I doubt it will survive.

An investigation carried out ostensibly to uncover subversive activities but actually used to harass and undermine those with differing views.

Moral panics are considered to include some persecutions of individuals or groups, such as the Red Scare, antisemitic pogroms, Stalinist purges, the witch-hunts of Renaissance Europe.

Cromm said:

Under your definition, all criticism or identification of an unacceptable position is a "witch hunt".

Well, I did not actually define witch hunt as a verb or noun so much as clarify its grammatical specificity; however, depending upon how such "criticism or identification of an unacceptable position" is carried out, yes, your description of my definition is applicable.

You might be fine with that definition, but it lack enough precision to be useful as a descriptor.

Bafflegab.

I know that FfTB has, by and large, especially when it suits the argument, eschewed dictionaries as tools of Slyme and Evilosity in the world, but two definitions from FreeDictionary are applicable to the kind of "witch hunt" that surrounds (Sau)Ron Lindsey, and other dissenters of the gerneal FfTB / Skepchick ideology/dogma:

1. An investigation carried out ostensibly to uncover subversive activities but actually used to harass and undermine those with differing views.

2. An intensive, often highly publicized effort to discover and expose those who are disloyal, subversive, etc., as in a government or political party, usu. on the basis of slight or doubtful evidence.

As they say, YMMV.

JAB wrote: <snip>
Yes, I wonder if cromm ever read or saw "The Crucible" and, if he did, I wonder if he thought it was actually about the Salem witch trials. Is he really this stupid, or did he draw the short stick in the backchannel discussion and got caught having to make this argument in public?

Ericb wrote:For no particular reason:

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18k3a2l ... xlarge.jpg

Dick Strawkins wrote:

Voryn wrote:
:lol:

I also think that most of the people who inhabit the slymepit are, well, slime. I read some of their comments upon my engagement and it was elementary school rage at a social enemy’s happiness all over again. I have no love for that group. Chief among them is Justin Vacula who I consider to be one of the most childish, obtuse, and despicable atheists on the planet. He’s a cruel person and I don’t like him. I’m not here to defend Justin Vacula or his ilk.

I'm no ilk of Vacula! :hand:

That whole post was hilarious.
Justin Vacula is the most despicable person in all of atheism?
Stalin and Pol Pot anyone?

What a maroon! :D

Steersman wrote:

JAB wrote: <snip>
Yes, I wonder if cromm ever read or saw "The Crucible" and, if he did, I wonder if he thought it was actually about the Salem witch trials. Is he really this stupid, or did he draw the short stick in the backchannel discussion and got caught having to make this argument in public?

:lol: He was the one elected to "take one for the team" this time around ....

But an interesting "dynamic" all around. Seems that many of "them" are mistaking the "what Lindsay said about X" for the "that Lindsay said Y about X" - "how dare he!!!" - and attacking the latter which might reasonably be construed as a "witch hunt". But maybe many of "us" are evading the possibilty that some criticisms of the "what" might hold some water - Watson's post here for example.

Ericb wrote:For no particular reason:

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18k3a2l ... xlarge.jpg

guest wrote:fun for all the skepchick family, did you see this coming?
from

http://www.anonmgur.com/up/8eefe570a951 ... 5e932d.png

http://www.anonmgur.com/up/9bd7273b87a1 ... b38c09.png

http://www.anonmgur.com/up/557dceca8ea5 ... 0b8107.png

Women deal damage by taking away other women’s victim cred and inflating their own.
...
A clean knock out is achieved when everyone believes you are the passive flower of fainting womanhood wounded by a vile witch of a she-beast whom you have done everything you could to appease with your gentle compassion despite your rival’s horrible wickedness.

Toxic femininity is not a personal trait of individuals. It is an aspect of a gender role, and since gender roles are a matrix of customs, expectations and policing, they are social rather than individual. To the extent that gender is constructed, this is where the construction takes place. (Gender identities are different; they inhere in individuals.)
...
The switch from dominant Moral Guardian to trembling Damsel can be instantaneous, because at bottom there is not much distnace between them. The dominant matron battle-ax can very easily stand over a man and lecture him about defending and protecting poor, helpless women.

JTEberhard wrote:It doesn’t matter that I expressed utter loathing for most of them, I’ll have critiqued their enemies and they’ll laugh like hyenas as if my suggestions for improvement for a cause I support means victory for them. They did the same with Ron Lindsay, even after Lindsay affirmed the necessity of feminism. The fact that MRAs and slymepitters touch themselves anytime someone suggests that the feminist movement might do better with a little more patience should not convince anybody that people like myself are friends to the slymepit.

Dick Strawkins wrote:

welch wrote:

Voryn wrote:http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2013 ... supported/

JT has a very long post up about the CFI Kerfluffle. I'm not done reading it yet, but I've learned that Vacula is our cruel-hearted chieftain. JT has spent a good amount of the post covering his ass by saying how evil we all are. What I find really interesting is that JT and Justin are actually a lot more alike than they realize, but on different sides of the spectrum, and that includes the fact that Vacula is far less hardcore/angry. Anyway, it's a bit amusing how much he has to say he hates us, we'll see if that works in his favor..

Hail Chieftain Vacula!!(?)

Blah, blah, blah, I write like oolon only worse, blah, blah, blah.

Can any of those fucksticks other than Myers get to the point in under a chapter? Hell, even Steersman isn't that longwinded. That may be why Myers is their leader, he's the only one who can make a point before people start stabbing themselves to make it end.

I was playing about with the waybackmachine last night when I decided, on a whim, to have a look at the old Pharyngula.
Not the http://www.scienceblogs/pharyngula, but the previous, original, pre 'famous blogger' pharyngula.

It's here if anyone is interested:

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.pharyngula.com

It's almost sad reading it to realize how he would turn out seven or eight years later.

One funny thing I noticed was a comment from someone named Amanda which linked to a small blog called mouse words.
It was Marcotte, back in the days before Pandragon. She was a feminist then but actually came across as someone who you could actually talk to without the fear of receiving a pepper-spraying.

Maybe half of my audience here will be familiar with this problem. You're a man, and you're hauling this massive, ummm, package around in your pants everywhere you go. Other men fear you, while the women worship you…yet at the same time, your e-mail is stuffed to bursting with strange people making friendly offers to help you make it even bigger. It's a dilemma; you think you would be even more godlike if only it were larger, but could there possibly be any downside to it? (There is a bit of folk wisdom that inflating it drains all the blood from the brain, but this is clearly false. Men who are stupid when erect are also just as stupid when limp.)

cunt wrote:YMMV has to be one of the most annoying sign-offs in the history of the world. I hereby give you permission to disagree with me.

Yeah, fuck you. Never needed your permission.

Aneris wrote:More Myth-Making By Rebecca Watson (freezepaged)

In (fair) summary: people were bringing up the Galileo mistake, even though she corrected it some minutes after she uploaded the video (with an indicator in the video, and tweets), and that people dislike her because of it. But makes clear that this can't be the whole reason...

Some observations about this trickery:

• She claims that this misrepresentation was the reason that nobody likes her (false!)
• Since people like people who admits mistakes, she courts for affection. (manipulation)
• Gives the "What's not to like" impression, and thereby tries to make other people look unreasonable. Especially as they exaggerate a small lapsus. (veiled attack)
• She begins the piece with sexism/pro-harassment myth arc that runs through all their stories by linking to CFI articles she wrote before. Then connects it via the topic of "mistakes" with her lapsus, giving the impression that people really hate her other reasons (veiled allegation of misogyny/sexism)

:clap:

the male supremacists who harass me every day

Tribble wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:

welch wrote:

Voryn wrote:http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2013 ... supported/

JT has a very long post up about the CFI Kerfluffle. I'm not done reading it yet, but I've learned that Vacula is our cruel-hearted chieftain. JT has spent a good amount of the post covering his ass by saying how evil we all are. What I find really interesting is that JT and Justin are actually a lot more alike than they realize, but on different sides of the spectrum, and that includes the fact that Vacula is far less hardcore/angry. Anyway, it's a bit amusing how much he has to say he hates us, we'll see if that works in his favor..

Hail Chieftain Vacula!!(?)

Blah, blah, blah, I write like oolon only worse, blah, blah, blah.

Can any of those fucksticks other than Myers get to the point in under a chapter? Hell, even Steersman isn't that longwinded. That may be why Myers is their leader, he's the only one who can make a point before people start stabbing themselves to make it end.

I was playing about with the waybackmachine last night when I decided, on a whim, to have a look at the old Pharyngula.
Not the http://www.scienceblogs/pharyngula, but the previous, original, pre 'famous blogger' pharyngula.

It's here if anyone is interested:

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.pharyngula.com

It's almost sad reading it to realize how he would turn out seven or eight years later.

One funny thing I noticed was a comment from someone named Amanda which linked to a small blog called mouse words.
It was Marcotte, back in the days before Pandragon. She was a feminist then but actually came across as someone who you could actually talk to without the fear of receiving a pepper-spraying.

You mean like this, from "The Burden of Bearing a Massive Penis" he wrote May 31st, 2005? Before the stick in his ass turned into a sequoia?

Maybe half of my audience here will be familiar with this problem. You're a man, and you're hauling this massive, ummm, package around in your pants everywhere you go. Other men fear you, while the women worship you…yet at the same time, your e-mail is stuffed to bursting with strange people making friendly offers to help you make it even bigger. It's a dilemma; you think you would be even more godlike if only it were larger, but could there possibly be any downside to it? (There is a bit of folk wisdom that inflating it drains all the blood from the brain, but this is clearly false. Men who are stupid when erect are also just as stupid when limp.)

So, if you have a big dick, women will worship you? Hardly feminist now is it?

Like I've said in the past, the 'old Paul' and the 'new Paul' are not the same Paul. I really think this has more to do with other things than him being some life-long in-the-closet-until-recently feminist.

KiwiInOz wrote:

Ericb wrote:For no particular reason:

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18k3a2l ... xlarge.jpg

Fuck off. Ise talkin to sacha.

Ericb wrote:PZ's book is supposed to be published in August. I don't know how Amazon moderates its review board but I doubt PZ will have any control over the page. The commentary there could prove to be interesting.

deLurch wrote:

AndrewV69 wrote: Taking a break. "Interesting" thread so far all right. I am currently at comment #87 and Ally makes a cheap bet:

Ally Fogg wrote: 87
Ally Fogg

[snip]

Here is a challenge for you. Find me any single thread on AVFM, /r/mensrights, antimisandry or any other prominent MRA site which has a whole article and more than a dozen comments without someone mentioning and blaming feminism for something?

You might be able to do it, but I bet it takes you a long, long time.

Low blow Ally. Low blow. :D

I don't have a dog in that fight, but curiosity will be the death of me. Tell Ally Fogg that his conditions were to f'ing easy.



It took me about 15 minutes, but only because my curiosity issue led me to read a couple of main stream media articles in the process, and the first hit I had led me to internally debate if he would accept a linked article under /r/MensRights with more than 12 comments so I opted not to use it. I also read through a few comments on some other posts there which reminded me why I don't like to subscribe to nor read the gender angst sites that he mentioned. And then of course I needed to read through the whole post with comments to ensure neither feminism, feminists nor any feminist organizations were mentioned. The "FLS" organization mentioned in the person's post is Florida Legal Services.

bovarchist wrote:

Ericb wrote:PZ's book is supposed to be published in August. I don't know how Amazon moderates its review board but I doubt PZ will have any control over the page. The commentary there could prove to be interesting.

I doubt it. I wrote a really bad review of Zach Weiner's graphic novel Stupendous Man, and it kept getting deleted.

Kareem wrote:Breaking Ellenbeth news:
ATHEIST ACTIVIST TO ATHEISTS OF FLORIDA: PAY YOUR BILL!
So much wtf in one story alone.

cunt wrote:
Agreed and the most annoying thing about all that is that Justin, for the longest time, essentially just used the slymepit as a dumping ground for links about Justin.

I'll give him this though. Asking for $1500 for another conference just over 2 weeks after he got $3500 for Dublin proves without a doubt that he's sitting on balls the size of space-hoppers.

Parody Accountant wrote:

Skep tickle wrote:

AndrewV69 wrote:Oh nearly forgot.

It took me 2 minutes to confirm that phone number for Pogsurf. He has not made much effort to hide his identity I have to say. Much less than our boy Anthony K apparently.

So, I doubt our boy Pogsurf is going to be too intimidated by being doxxed. ...

Follow up from Pogsurf, from his blog. Dude is playing hardball.

Reminder that he had mailed a letter to some or possibly all of the speakers for the upcoming Dublin conference, asking in quiz form which conference speaker made rape threats, apparently signing Pog's real name and giving his real phone number, as well as emailing PZ, who posted part of Pog's phone number & PZ's commentariat filled in missing details about how to find the rest of the phone # & other info).

Besides the 2 posts linked below, he's also got a couple of posts up "Cataloguing threats", seems to have concluded that PZ Myers is The One who has allowed threats to be published (though his research may still be proceeding)

June 18 post: http://pogsurf.blogspot.com/2013/06/cat ... rwork.html

He [Pogsurf] will mostly be sorting out his paperwork, so if you'd like to phone him at home, or on his mobile, during daylight hours, please feel free to do so.

PZ Myers is far to chicken to call himself, which is why he is trying to motivate his horde to harass Pogsurf.

An Garda Síochána* have already advised that should PZ attend Dublin 2013 he will be arrested under a EU-wide arrest warrant for 'inciting or coercing others to commit a felony'. Enjoy you conference from behind bars, PZ!

*Ireland's National Police Service

June 20 post: http://pogsurf.blogspot.com/2013/06/abusive-calls.html
Pogsurf claims he received 727 harassing phone calls on June 18th, and that:

All calls are now being auto-diverted to Scotland Yard's Anti-Harassment Unit, logged and monitored. Suspects are being interview by local police forces where appropriate.

:shock: :shock:

:popcorn:

I can't take his funny charts seriously, and I'm only familiar with US laws. How legit is this? Is he just having fun, or are the authorities literally planning to nab PZ?

ERV wrote:Secondly, I will be *happy* to bring up JTs 'engagement' again!
He is a nauseating attention whore who used a position of authority (his speaking platform)

ERV wrote:to make sure each and every non-heterosexual in the audience knew he was better than them. "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME GETTING MARRIED! LOL U CANT GET MARRIED, HOMOS! LOL REMEMBER THAT TIME I FUCKED A MARRIED WOMAN! SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE LOL U CANT GET MARRIED! LOL LOOK AT MEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!! LOL IM DOING THIS IN MISSOURI, A STATE WHERE THEY HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AGAINST HOMO MARRIAGE! AND I CALL MYSELF AN 'ALLY" LOL! MEEEEEEEEEE! MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

ERV wrote:Ive said this for decades-- Its abominable that any heterosexual would get married (ie add value) to an institution that is not open to everyone. It is not an instance where exercising the unfair right helps those who dont have it (eg using my ability to vote to get others the right to vote). Its bullshit. And, marriage is a religious institution anyway. Why the fuck are atheists getting married, if not for the financial and legal benefits the contract provides, by the state (which homosexuals cannot have in many states in the US).
I think its bullshit when anyone does it.
Its exponentially bullshittier when a A†heist, who cares oh-so-more about homosexuals than EVERYONE ELSE (derp) does it.

Cunning Punt wrote:

Kareem wrote:Breaking Ellenbeth news:
ATHEIST ACTIVIST TO ATHEISTS OF FLORIDA: PAY YOUR BILL!
So much wtf in one story alone.

Yeah, I have to say there's a awful lot of shit has gone her way over the last few years. At least that's how it looks. She's either very unlucky in her choice of friends and acquaintances or there's more to her story than meets the eye. And no I don't want you opinion, whatisname.

Tony Parsehole wrote:If I was a troll like Pogsurf I'd send dodgy letters out to all the usual suspects with somebody elses name, phone number and address attached, preferably somebody who I know would react with an equal amount of venom and spite or somebody who you just don't generally want to mess with, and watch the baboons get mired in a two-way shit-storm all the while cackling manically at my master skills of manipulation and deceit.

Did not one person over there think that's what Pogsurf might actually be doing?

Tribble wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:

welch wrote:

Voryn wrote:http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2013 ... supported/

JT has a very long post up about the CFI Kerfluffle. I'm not done reading it yet, but I've learned that Vacula is our cruel-hearted chieftain. JT has spent a good amount of the post covering his ass by saying how evil we all are. What I find really interesting is that JT and Justin are actually a lot more alike than they realize, but on different sides of the spectrum, and that includes the fact that Vacula is far less hardcore/angry. Anyway, it's a bit amusing how much he has to say he hates us, we'll see if that works in his favor..

Hail Chieftain Vacula!!(?)

Blah, blah, blah, I write like oolon only worse, blah, blah, blah.

Can any of those fucksticks other than Myers get to the point in under a chapter? Hell, even Steersman isn't that longwinded. That may be why Myers is their leader, he's the only one who can make a point before people start stabbing themselves to make it end.

I was playing about with the waybackmachine last night when I decided, on a whim, to have a look at the old Pharyngula.
Not the http://www.scienceblogs/pharyngula, but the previous, original, pre 'famous blogger' pharyngula.

It's here if anyone is interested:

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.pharyngula.com

It's almost sad reading it to realize how he would turn out seven or eight years later.

One funny thing I noticed was a comment from someone named Amanda which linked to a small blog called mouse words.
It was Marcotte, back in the days before Pandragon. She was a feminist then but actually came across as someone who you could actually talk to without the fear of receiving a pepper-spraying.

You mean like this, from "The Burden of Bearing a Massive Penis" he wrote May 31st, 2005? Before the stick in his ass turned into a sequoia?

Maybe half of my audience here will be familiar with this problem. You're a man, and you're hauling this massive, ummm, package around in your pants everywhere you go. Other men fear you, while the women worship you…yet at the same time, your e-mail is stuffed to bursting with strange people making friendly offers to help you make it even bigger. It's a dilemma; you think you would be even more godlike if only it were larger, but could there possibly be any downside to it? (There is a bit of folk wisdom that inflating it drains all the blood from the brain, but this is clearly false. Men who are stupid when erect are also just as stupid when limp.)

So, if you have a big dick, women will worship you? Hardly feminist now is it?

Like I've said in the past, the 'old Paul' and the 'new Paul' are not the same Paul. I really think this has more to do with other things than him being some life-long in-the-closet-until-recently feminist.

ReneeHendricks wrote:Anyone read Crommunist's bit on "Witch of the Week/Witch Hunts" (post is called Abused meme roundup: “Witch Hunts”)?

Freezepage: http://www.freezepage.com/1371739236DJIYUVFNTT

It's a very, very long bit of 'splaining. Whatever would we do without people like Crommunist informing us of the true meaning of "witch hunt"?

Skep tickle wrote:Anybody know how much CFI gave to support Skepticon in past years?

I'm not turning up that info, am mostly finding past pages that ask for donations (esp in 11/2012 when funding was below expenses, for example this one in which someone asks in the comments what the target is, but no answer is posted: http://skepticon.org/halp/)

This page gives the closest I've found (in a fairly quick search) to an estimate of the costs: ($14K for venue + travel expenses for ~20 speakers)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2012 ... kepticon/u

"The Truth About How Skepticon Works" from 2/2013, here: http://skepticon.org/the-truth-about-ho ... con-works/
says it's the first of planned regular communications including "Near future goals for site content...: Keep this weekly feature going about how we get money, how we spend it, and how much routine things cost."

Every penny spent came from somebody just like yourself who visited our donation page at some point, or sent us a check or handed us the money in a dark alley in person, or we spent out of our own shallow pockets. The event itself isn’t cheap either, and sometimes surprise financial obligations spring up and we beg for help.

Just trying to figure out how much of a hit cutting their ties with CFI will be, financially.

Badger3k wrote:

Skep tickle wrote:Anybody know how much CFI gave to support Skepticon in past years?

I'm not turning up that info, am mostly finding past pages that ask for donations (esp in 11/2012 when funding was below expenses, for example this one in which someone asks in the comments what the target is, but no answer is posted: http://skepticon.org/halp/)

This page gives the closest I've found (in a fairly quick search) to an estimate of the costs: ($14K for venue + travel expenses for ~20 speakers)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2012 ... kepticon/u

"The Truth About How Skepticon Works" from 2/2013, here: http://skepticon.org/the-truth-about-ho ... con-works/
says it's the first of planned regular communications including "Near future goals for site content...: Keep this weekly feature going about how we get money, how we spend it, and how much routine things cost."

Every penny spent came from somebody just like yourself who visited our donation page at some point, or sent us a check or handed us the money in a dark alley in person, or we spent out of our own shallow pockets. The event itself isn’t cheap either, and sometimes surprise financial obligations spring up and we beg for help.

Just trying to figure out how much of a hit cutting their ties with CFI will be, financially.

Since they have such an incestuous relationship with the FTBullies, I'm sure all those hordes of people will be glad to donate. They really do like asking for money a lot, don't they? Money for shoes, food, drinks...er...conventions.... :violin:

(actually, though, expect them to play this up big time and try to get every penny they can from the gullible.

Garlic wrote:

ERV wrote:Secondly, I will be *happy* to bring up JTs 'engagement' again!

He is a nauseating attention whore who used a position of authority (his speaking platform) to make sure each and every non-heterosexual in the audience knew he was better than them. "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME GETTING MARRIED! LOL U CANT GET MARRIED, HOMOS! LOL REMEMBER THAT TIME I FUCKED A MARRIED WOMAN! SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE LOL U CANT GET MARRIED! LOL LOOK AT MEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!! LOL IM DOING THIS IN MISSOURI, A STATE WHERE THEY HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AGAINST HOMO MARRIAGE! AND I CALL MYSELF AN 'ALLY" LOL! MEEEEEEEEEE! MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

Ive said this for decades-- Its abominable that any heterosexual would get married (ie add value) to an institution that is not open to everyone. It is not an instance where exercising the unfair right helps those who dont have it (eg using my ability to vote to get others the right to vote). Its bullshit. And, marriage is a religious institution anyway. Why the fuck are atheists getting married, if not for the financial and legal benefits the contract provides, by the state (which homosexuals cannot have in many states in the US).

I think its bullshit when anyone does it.

Its exponentially bullshittier when a A†heist, who cares oh-so-more about homosexuals than EVERYONE ELSE (derp) does it.

:shock:

Forgive this non-native speaker for missing the subtleties, but... this post is satire, right?

Gumby wrote:

bovarchist wrote:

Ericb wrote:PZ's book is supposed to be published in August. I don't know how Amazon moderates its review board but I doubt PZ will have any control over the page. The commentary there could prove to be interesting.

I doubt it. I wrote a really bad review of Zach Weiner's graphic novel Stupendous Man, and it kept getting deleted.

This may be a case where PZ's whored still has some Pharyngulating power.

I am sure that they will click "Report Abuse" en masse after every negative review, and will not bother to differentiate between honest negative reviews and obvious trolling.

However, there is an appeals process that can be used from what I've heard. Never needed it so haven't looked for it though.

Remick wrote:

Steersman wrote:

JAB wrote: <snip>
Yes, I wonder if cromm ever read or saw "The Crucible" and, if he did, I wonder if he thought it was actually about the Salem witch trials. Is he really this stupid, or did he draw the short stick in the backchannel discussion and got caught having to make this argument in public?

:lol: He was the one elected to "take one for the team" this time around ....

But an interesting "dynamic" all around. Seems that many of "them" are mistaking the "what Lindsay said about X" for the "that Lindsay said Y about X" - "how dare he!!!" - and attacking the latter which might reasonably be construed as a "witch hunt". But maybe many of "us" are evading the possibilty that some criticisms of the "what" might hold some water - Watson's post here for example.

Evading what possibility exactly Steers? If what Lindsay said is wrong, that is a debate worth having. What skin in that game do any of us have if he was?

Remick wrote:The point is the prior part, attacking that HE (and he is important here) said something critical. It doesn't matter to them if the criticism is correct or not, it is simply that he was critical. That is the issue we have.

Remick wrote:If all the posts were just about the content and how it is correct in parts, but falls short in X regard. Fucking fine! Let's talk about it. It is that the overwhelming majority of complaints is that Lindsay was critical AT WiS2 of SOME women. What a joke.

Remick wrote:

Steersman wrote:

JAB wrote: <snip>
Yes, I wonder if cromm ever read or saw "The Crucible" and, if he did, I wonder if he thought it was actually about the Salem witch trials. Is he really this stupid, or did he draw the short stick in the backchannel discussion and got caught having to make this argument in public?

:lol: He was the one elected to "take one for the team" this time around ....

But an interesting "dynamic" all around. Seems that many of "them" are mistaking the "what Lindsay said about X" for the "that Lindsay said Y about X" - "how dare he!!!" - and attacking the latter which might reasonably be construed as a "witch hunt". But maybe many of "us" are evading the possibilty that some criticisms of the "what" might hold some water - Watson's post here for example.

Evading what possibility exactly steers? If what Lindsay said is wrong, that is a debate worth having. What skin in that game do any of us have if he was. The point is the prior part, attacking that HE (and he is important here) said something critical. It doesn't matter to them if the criticism is correct or not, it is simply that he was critical. That is the issue we have.

If all the posts were just about the content and how it is correct in parts, but falls short in X regard. Fucking fine! Let's talk about it. It is that the overwhelming majority of complaints is that Lindsay was critical AT WiS2 of SOME women. What a joke.

deLurch wrote:I don't think his intention was to shove it in the face of gay people.

I will agree that is bullshit that gay people cannot get married in many states. That tide is slowly changing on a state by state basis.

But I'll have to say that if your sole reason to choose not to get married is because you are waiting for laws to change to be more favorable to your opinion, I think this is as radical as the MGTOWs refusing to get married until laws change. No one is going to notice or care about this form of protest.

... expect everyone else to live up to this radical standard.

Dick Strawkins wrote:All we got was a constant rerun of that fucking elevator story and more promotion of troll messages to her. She's had the chance to make a difference but she chose to play the elevator tape-loop.

welch wrote:

Tribble wrote: <snip>
So, if you have a big dick, women will worship you? Hardly feminist now is it?

Like I've said in the past, the 'old Paul' and the 'new Paul' are not the same Paul. I really think this has more to do with other things than him being some life-long in-the-closet-until-recently feminist.

I think he was making a joke more than anything. But again, it's okay when he does it.

Melby wrote:I mean the answer to: HEY – someone associated with org-X did this obnoxious, ill-advised, or horrible thing Y – should not be met with: SHUT UP ABOUT org-X not everyone is terrible there.

Steersman wrote:

Remick wrote:

Steersman wrote:

JAB wrote: <snip>
Yes, I wonder if cromm ever read or saw "The Crucible" and, if he did, I wonder if he thought it was actually about the Salem witch trials. Is he really this stupid, or did he draw the short stick in the backchannel discussion and got caught having to make this argument in public?

:lol: He was the one elected to "take one for the team" this time around ....

But an interesting "dynamic" all around. Seems that many of "them" are mistaking the "what Lindsay said about X" for the "that Lindsay said Y about X" - "how dare he!!!" - and attacking the latter which might reasonably be construed as a "witch hunt". But maybe many of "us" are evading the possibilty that some criticisms of the "what" might hold some water - Watson's post here for example.

Evading what possibility exactly Steers? If what Lindsay said is wrong, that is a debate worth having. What skin in that game do any of us have if he was?

The possibility that you basically conceded in your second sentence, that “what Lindsay said was wrong”, at least some of it to some extent or from some perspective. Which should be a point of reference but not a point conceded. As for the “skin” that “we” might have in that game, if you concede that possibility then if it is true then it might well influence the arguments that “we” advance or defend. Seems like something worth knowing to me.

Remick wrote:The point is the prior part, attacking that HE (and he is important here) said something critical. It doesn't matter to them if the criticism is correct or not, it is simply that he was critical. That is the issue we have.

Yes, I quite agree with you – which I stated in my previous post and which you’re agreeing with there. But, having agreed that we at least are on the same page, I think it is maybe appropriate to “stop, (what's that sound?) Everybody look what's going down.” So to speak. And my impression from having read a little bit about mediation practices – partly through necessity – is that in virtually all “rifts” everybody has a credible issue or two. And that if everybody is really serious about having their issues addressed then they realize that the other parties do so as well. And that the best guarantee of having your issues addressed is to see that those of the other parties are addressed as well.

Quid pro quo is the principle in play, I think, and with some justification. And then if the other party doesn't play fair then you're entitled to stomp all over them with hobnail boots - but not beforehand. Which Tribble's (I think) anecdote illustrated rather well.

Remick wrote:If all the posts were just about the content and how it is correct in parts, but falls short in X regard. Fucking fine! Let's talk about it. It is that the overwhelming majority of complaints is that Lindsay was critical AT WiS2 of SOME women. What a joke.

Yes, I’ll generally agree with you, at least to the extent of saying that at least a great many of those complaints seem to be predicated largely on some rather childish butthurt. But the “majority” of them? That seems a bit of a stretch that I would have to see some serious evidence of before giving much credence to the claim.

However, as mentioned, I expect that “we” might find more of “them” willing to concede the point about the butthurt if more of “us” were willing to concede at least the possibilty that Lindsay’s speech was maybe too much of a blunt instrument. Even if there might have been some justification for it – even if only to get people’s attention ….

But I think there's all sorts of highly questionable nuances and different interpretations in that mess which makes the untangling rather problematic to say the least.

Apples wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:All we got was a constant rerun of that fucking elevator story and more promotion of troll messages to her. She's had the chance to make a difference but she chose to play the elevator tape-loop.

[youtubie]DmhFSIGn9Gk[/youtube]

bovarchist wrote:Out of curiosity, does anyone here actually intend to buy The Happy Atheist?

Dick Strawkins wrote:

ReneeHendricks wrote:Anyone read Crommunist's bit on "Witch of the Week/Witch Hunts" (post is called Abused meme roundup: “Witch Hunts”)?

Freezepage: http://www.freezepage.com/1371739236DJIYUVFNTT

It's a very, very long bit of 'splaining. Whatever would we do without people like Crommunist informing us of the true meaning of "witch hunt"?

It's also quite, quite stupid.

So when you want to use the “witch hunt” example to describe a thing you object to, you should be able to demonstrate two things: that the subject of the censure is, in fact, being treated like a ‘witch’, and is being threatened with ‘fire’. In the absence of either of those elements, your accusation is specious.

Voryn wrote:http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2013 ... supported/

JT has a very long post up about the CFI Kerfluffle. I'm not done reading it yet, but I've learned that Vacula is our cruel-hearted chieftain. JT has spent a good amount of the post covering his ass by saying how evil we all are. What I find really interesting is that JT and Justin are actually a lot more alike than they realize, but on different sides of the spectrum, and that includes the fact that Vacula is far less hardcore/angry. Anyway, it's a bit amusing how much he has to say he hates us, we'll see if that works in his favor..

Hail Chieftain Vacula!!(?)

Tribble wrote:

bovarchist wrote:Out of curiosity, does anyone here actually intend to buy The Happy Atheist?

Not only no, but HELL NO! The title alone gives me pause.