Bleeding from the Bunghole

#1141

Supertroy wrote:Has anyone offered Dallas as an example of a sexual assault allegation that we must believe because, hey, believe the victims! Or are we silently trying to tiptoe around the fact that it seems suspect to believe rape allegations from someone, whom by most indications doesn't seem too inherently stable?

(Not saying unstable is a bad thing, just saying that taking the word of someone that unstable isn't always the best course of action)

What I'd like to know is who let this guy out of the hospital so soon? American health care at its finest. Stomach pump 'em and dump 'em.

#1142

The Tim Channel wrote:Church is now in session. Apologies to Jerry Dewitt.

http://thetimchannel.wordpress.com/2013 ... -services/

Enjoy.

I like how whenever I look at one of your blog posts, there is an invitation at the bottom to "be the first to like this".

Enjoy.

#1143

Plonk wrote:
JackRayner wrote:"Dallas" is at it again. Here's a screen of a comment that just popped up on Thunderf00t's latest video:

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... 2bef0f.png

And here's the freezepage to the tumblr post.
Shouldn't he be under medical supervision or something? The youtube comment section on a video like that is the last place he needs to be, given his fragile state.

If his friends really had his back, if they thought he really had a case, they would have urged him to take his findings (and his testimony, which according to him is ironclad) to the police instead of writing it on blogs and on YouTube.

Since I take these things seriously, that's what I would've done. Even at the risk of "blaming the victim."

#1144

goddamn 'nym wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Guest wrote: I take all my info on string theory from Peter Woit. His observation is that ST is on the way out in terms of new people starting in the field. But of course he might be tainted by confirmation bias.
I have a thing or two to say about Woit, but I'm not going to engage someone who won't use a goddamn 'nym.
No need to discuss Woit. And I have no clue about physics either. His observation that string theory is on the way out in physics departments was my only point. What is your impression of the situation?

Every field can use some nipping at the heels to keep it sharp. Woit does provide that to SUSY, but in his zeal to discredit the theory, he overreaches. His snarky jabs at sparticles would be just as applicable to the Higgs before it was detected, or other particles. Hey, Pete -- what's the mass of a neutrino, again?

I did read that, after the String research fad, new grads were going into other areas because String was overcrowded, and the mother-lodes-what-make-you-famous had already been tapped. That's not to say that nothing new is being done in String/M.

There does seem to be a recent counter-offensive of the Standard Model stalwarts. They're proposing some new (note to Woit: as yet unseen) particles even smaller than quarks. Calling them peons or pwns or something.

Ultimately, imo, String/M has two advantages over the Standard Model. The first is gravity. If the choice is between 'we could test it, but we can't explain it yet' vs. 'we can explain it but we can't test it yet', I'd go with the latter. The second advantage is elegance, that inchoate but essential trait for any good theory. QM is exceptionally precise & useful, but it's also exceptionally messy & seemingly arbitrary. Everything built of 1-D identical vibrating strings is way elegant.

I'm as big a fan as anyone of Feynman's "not even good enough to be wrong" maxim. And
there may still be some areas of String that will never be testable. But my hunch is, those are areas where nothing will ever be testable. For the first time in the history of modern science, we may be running up against the hard boundary of the observable. (Especially as it seems both space and time are quantized at Planck limits.) Though we may never be able to directly measure the underlying structure of the universe, we may have to be content extrapolating from the shadow it casts.

Of course, Dick Carrier will likely sort all this out during his next plane flight.

P.S. Best goddamn 'nym evah!

#1145

Aneris wrote:
muede wrote:I think there argument as to why posting the allegation was justified
goes something like this:

i. PZ is a reliable source.

ii. Rape allegations are likely to be true.

iii. Making a previously unknown, likely rapist known to the public
likely results in less rapes.

iv. Tainting one privileged man's reputation is justified, if it
likely prevents rapes.

From PZ's article and i. and ii. we get that there likely was a rape.
Making this and the rapist known, likely results in less rape (iii.).
Therefore posting the allegation was justified (iv.).

Seems reasonable...

muede

Reporting to the police and reporting to a blog, what could possibly prevent more rape, if the allegations were true?

Since in gossip another name came up as the worst, which was quickly overshadowed by Shmeargate, why do they go after Shermer and not famous Atheist? I just question the internal consistency.

What does warning actually mean in practice? Like drinking responsibly?

How many readers actually really do party with Shermer?

I'm pretty sure that's a troll you've got there Aneris. Engage with them if you want to, but don't expect much to come of it.

#1146

Ä uest wrote:
Guest wrote:
Rope apologist wrote: Why are at least half of the comments about paying for a subscription to Pharyngula, moron?

Actually, it's recommended that you read with comprehension. The Zed admits that there's shit in his own ads as well.

Subscriptions would rather cool this place down, FWIW. I'm not paying him anything--and I certainly wasn't one who took ad block off in appreciation of Fearless Leader when I still did comment there.
Because it's a circlejerk where lots of people tell PZ how wonderful his shit tastes by promising to pay for a subscription. But like the Happy Atheist, IRL, no one will be buying.

If you want to participate in a circlejerk, feel free to go back there.
Now with less sucky quoting.

Wow, Guest-on-Guest violence. This is more fun than a catfight at a line-dancing bar.

#1147

bovarchist wrote:New post from Damien makes the Pit out as just like FTB, just...I dunno. You read it, see what you think.

http://www.skepticink.com/backgroundpro ... ck-a-side/

What I want to know is, who are the "opinion leaders" here? Because I'd like to know who I'm supposed to agree with.

And to think that, after so many years, my childhood dreams of belonging to a "memetic monoculture" have finally been realized!

#1148

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
bovarchist wrote:New post from Damien makes the Pit out as just like FTB, just...I dunno. You read it, see what you think.

http://www.skepticink.com/backgroundpro ... ck-a-side/

What I want to know is, who are the "opinion leaders" here? Because I'd like to know who I'm supposed to agree with.
And to think that, after so many years, my childhood dreams of belonging to a "memetic monoculture" have finally been realized!

Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it. :-)

Although, in passing, while you might have been referring to a variation from Feynman, it was, I think, Pauli who first came up with that "not even wrong" comment. [/pedant]

#1149

This weekend the UK's largest feminist conference took place. One of the themes seems to have been rejection of mainstream economics and science, and their replacement with "feminist economics" and "women's ways of knowing".

But of course feminism is simply "the radical notion that women are people", all true skeptics should be feminists, and anyone who opposes feminist activism must be a misogynistic MRA.

If theists, conspiracy theorists, or alternative medicine quacks held a conference over here it'd be the talk of the British skeptic community. There'd certainly be no shortage of analysis, criticism and mockery of the dafter ideas on display. I won't be holding my breath waiting for British skeptics to comment on feminism's anti-science zaniness.

#1150

AndrewV69 wrote:I am just going to drop this off as a handy map of the "Manosphere" for those who may be interested:

http://www.mgtowforums.com/forums/mens- ... e-map.html
http://www.anonmgur.com/up/a7a2d8191b43 ... b41c20.png

I know what most of those words mean in English, but based on my complete lack of understanding even the tiniest bit of what this graph is supposed to be communicating, I'm guessing they have different meanings in this "Manosphere" place.

Ä uest · #1151

KenD wrote:This weekend the UK's largest feminist conference took place. One of the themes seems to have been rejection of mainstream economics and science, and their replacement with "feminist economics" and "women's ways of knowing".

But of course feminism is simply "the radical notion that women are people", all true skeptics should be feminists, and anyone who opposes feminist activism must be a misogynistic MRA.

If theists, conspiracy theorists, or alternative medicine quacks held a conference over here it'd be the talk of the British skeptic community. There'd certainly be no shortage of analysis, criticism and mockery of the dafter ideas on display. I won't be holding my breath waiting for British skeptics to comment on feminism's anti-science zaniness.

I wish I had a pranking budget. It would be fun to take out ads at FTB and SkepChick promoting these tweets.

Ä uest · #1152

Rystefn wrote:
AndrewV69 wrote:I am just going to drop this off as a handy map of the "Manosphere" for those who may be interested:

http://www.mgtowforums.com/forums/mens- ... e-map.html
http://www.anonmgur.com/up/a7a2d8191b43 ... b41c20.png
I know what most of those words mean in English, but based on my complete lack of understanding even the tiniest bit of what this graph is supposed to be communicating, I'm guessing they have different meanings in this "Manosphere" place.

I am very sympathetic to men's rights issues, and I look forward to what Andrew rights, but shit, the answer to feminist bullshit was not male bullshit.

#1153

KenD wrote:If theists, conspiracy theorists, or alternative medicine quacks held a conference over here it'd be the talk of the British skeptic community. There'd certainly be no shortage of analysis, criticism and mockery of the dafter ideas on display. I won't be holding my breath waiting for British skeptics to comment on feminism's anti-science zaniness.

This. So much this. (/hordespeak)

I don't understand their mindset. They're all anglo cracker women who enjoy the greatest standard of living of any human beings in history, almostly entirely as a result of scientific advancements in food supply, shelter and medicine. Then they go off their rants about science being some patriarchophallocentromalesupremoblahfuckingblahblah activity. Its mind boggling. Its a hobby they can only indulge in precisely because theyre at no risk of losing that comfortable lifestyle.

#1154

[quotebovarchist wrote:
New post from Damien makes the Pit out as just like FTB, just...I dunno. You read it, see what you think.

http://www.skepticink.com/backgroundpro ... ck-a-side/

What I want to know is, who are the "opinion leaders" here? Because I'd like to know who I'm supposed to agree with.][/quote]

It's pretty simple to figure out that they're the same, unless one actually bothers to gather relevant evidence to think like a skeptic.

You weren't going to trouble with evidence, Damien?

It's back to relying upon authority, then.

#1155

DownThunder wrote:
KenD wrote:If theists, conspiracy theorists, or alternative medicine quacks held a conference over here it'd be the talk of the British skeptic community. There'd certainly be no shortage of analysis, criticism and mockery of the dafter ideas on display. I won't be holding my breath waiting for British skeptics to comment on feminism's anti-science zaniness.
This. So much this. (/hordespeak)

I don't understand their mindset. They're all anglo cracker women who enjoy the greatest standard of living of any human beings in history, almostly entirely as a result of scientific advancements in food supply, shelter and medicine. Then they go off their rants about science being some patriarchophallocentromalesupremoblahfuckingblahblah activity. Its mind boggling. Its a hobby they can only indulge in precisely because theyre at no risk of losing that comfortable lifestyle.

Tolerating science could lead to demands for sufficient evidence for their own claims, you know.

#1156

Rystefn wrote:I know what most of those words mean in English, but based on my complete lack of understanding even the tiniest bit of what this graph is supposed to be communicating, I'm guessing they have different meanings in this "Manosphere" place.

I had to go over there and look. I'm little wiser for it. I think I'll go by Andrew's summaries henceforth. It would take time I can't spare to even understand what's being argued about.

#1157

"The Happy Atheist" was published by Pantheon Books.

It's a bit ironic, then, that a search of references on "self-plagiarism" mostly brings up Richard Posnerâ€™s "The Little Book of Plagiarism", published in 2007...by Pantheon Books.

From page 43 of Posner's book: â€œSelf-copying becomes fraudulent and therefore plagiaristic only when the author represents his latest work to be newly composed when in fact it is a copy of an earlier work of his that readers may have read."

http://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Plagi ... 037542475X

#1158

KenD wrote:This weekend the UK's largest feminist conference took place. One of the themes seems to have been rejection of mainstream economics and science, and their replacement with "feminist economics" and "women's ways of knowing".

PeeZus Christ! "Women's ways of knowing"? Really?

Am I a close-minded bigot if I immediately write off the loonies that use that term non-ironically?

#1159

Guest wrote:all too uncommon a voice of late

http://icbseverywhere.com/blog/2013/08/ ... play-nice/

Bless her, she means well and I hope she's right that the ruckus will die away eventually. But, she's wrong - as so many are - about this being a row between sceptics. It isn't, it's a row between sceptics and The Cult of the True Believers. Even if PeeZus hadn't announced his 'divorce' from scepticism it's been apparent for a long while that neither he, the rest of the FC(n) nor, least of all, the Baboon Whored have any grasp on the concept of scepticism at all.

It's also a bit odd that she titles her piece When â€œCanâ€™t you kids play nice?â€ is not enough: Feminists, Bloggers, and the Division of Skeptics, when 'can't you kids play nice' is basically what she's saying.

As a side note, I noted her nostalgia for:

My version of activism is engaging with my grassroots skepticism group in testing claims of paranormal ability. I love the investigations. Itâ€™s a hands-on activity; I get to really do the work, not just read the accounts of others.

I take it she's a 'Bigfoot Sceptic' then? Are people still doing this in the US? I know there's one born every minute, but how often is it necessary to debunk this tosh?

#1160

real horrorshow wrote:I take it she's a 'Bigfoot Sceptic' then? Are people still doing this in the US? I know there's one born every minute, but how often is it necessary to debunk this tosh?

The lines aren't carved in granite. Every time you go through the process, there's a chance you're opening someone's eyes to critical thinking. This is a good thing. The work should be continuous and ongoing. Even if there's no one left who goes for bigfoot or space alien abductions or ghosts in the walls, there will be other brand of dumb out there. I think of it like a ship: you may take a break now and then, but you're never done pumping the bilge.

#1161

Skep tickle wrote:"The Happy Atheist" was published by Pantheon Books.

It's a bit ironic, then, that a search of references on "self-plagiarism" mostly brings up Richard Posnerâ€™s "The Little Book of Plagiarism", published in 2007...by Pantheon Books.

From page 43 of Posner's book: â€œSelf-copying becomes fraudulent and therefore plagiaristic only when the author represents his latest work to be newly composed when in fact it is a copy of an earlier work of his that readers may have read."

http://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Plagi ... 037542475X

Just checked the Amazon atheist books bestsellers list again.

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Book ... ks/12764#1

'The Happy Atheist' has dropped out of the top 100 atheist books on Amazon, less than a week after it's release. :shock:
Remember, we are not talking about the overall bestseller list - this is the specialized list of atheist books, a much smaller playing field.

At the present moment its 7.18 in the morning here in Europe and so it's the middle of the night for you lot in the US and Canada.
Now perhaps we are seeing some degree of regionalization here - all the sales of the book are coming from Americans and all the Americans are sleeping (the Amazon list is updated hourly.)
But there are a number of other American authors who are not big name writers but whose books are selling steadily - for example Peter Boghossian - leading to the unfortunate (for him) conclusion that after a wait of six years PZ's book is sinking without trace.

:violin:

#1162

DownThunder wrote:I don't understand their mindset. They're all anglo cracker women who enjoy the greatest standard of living of any human beings in history, almostly entirely as a result of scientific advancements in food supply, shelter and medicine. Then they go off their rants about science being some patriarchophallocentromalesupremoblahfuckingblahblah activity. Its mind boggling. Its a hobby they can only indulge in precisely because theyre at no risk of losing that comfortable lifestyle.

I've struggled to get my head around it myself.

Eco-feminists are often rabidly anti-science for the same reasons as others on the fringes of the green movement. They blame capitalism and science for everything wrong in the world, sometimes fantasising about rejecting civilisation completely, and instead "living in harmony with nature" in some kind of technology-free tribal society. Of course they're usually completely delusional when it comes to how that'd affect their comfortable modern lives.

I think part of it's also down to many middle class British feminists being obsessed with the evils of "sexualisation". Despite the fact that things like rape, domestic abuse, and teen pregnancy have actually reduced in recent years, there's a real moral panic over smut, and much feminist activism is dedicated to its censorship and criminalisation.

I've often seen feminists argue that things are getting worse and worse for Western women, that things were better for them a century ago, and even that Islamic countries like Iran are less misogynistic than Britain or America. To them the boobs on page 3 of The Sun trump anything and everything else, and prove that capitalist/scientific Western society is uniquely evil.

#1163

Dick Strawkins wrote:
Skep tickle wrote:"The Happy Atheist" was published by Pantheon Books.

It's a bit ironic, then, that a search of references on "self-plagiarism" mostly brings up Richard Posnerâ€™s "The Little Book of Plagiarism", published in 2007...by Pantheon Books.

From page 43 of Posner's book: â€œSelf-copying becomes fraudulent and therefore plagiaristic only when the author represents his latest work to be newly composed when in fact it is a copy of an earlier work of his that readers may have read."

http://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Plagi ... 037542475X

Just checked the Amazon atheist books bestsellers list again.

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Book ... ks/12764#1

'The Happy Atheist' has dropped out of the top 100 atheist books on Amazon, less than a week after it's release. :shock:
Remember, we are not talking about the overall bestseller list - this is the specialized list of atheist books, a much smaller playing field.

At the present moment its 7.18 in the morning here in Europe and so it's the middle of the night for you lot in the US and Canada.
Now perhaps we are seeing some degree of regionalization here - all the sales of the book are coming from Americans and all the Americans are sleeping (the Amazon list is updated hourly.)
But there are a number of other American authors who are not big name writers but whose books are selling steadily - for example Peter Boghossian - leading to the unfortunate (for him) conclusion that after a wait of six years PZ's book is sinking without trace.

:violin:

Interesting. It did come up some from previous to its release, but really not that much.

The main reason I'm writing, though, is to point out that much of the sales to the largely unthinking audience left at his blog likely did occur prior to release. The highest levels I saw were shortly after he received the book and blurbed about that on Pharyngula, and those got up almost to a thousand on the Amazon list, then declined fairly rapidly. I think that relatively many were sold soon after the book was listed on Amazon, well over a year ago.

Sure, it's still not impressive no matter how you do the accounting, it's just that one has to remember that many of the sales thus far do have to include quite a few pre-release books (relatively, of course).

I think that in terms of sustainability, however, the question would be how many are sold to those besides the ones who can't quite imagine him being seriously wrong about anything. Considering that those buyers would probably be mostly after the release date, and Peezus' book has never sold very much since the release, I am thinking that it's going to be pretty much cultic sales, buyers who are the true believers. Those probably still account for a significant portion of the rather low sales figures.

#1164

JackRayner wrote:
KenD wrote:This weekend the UK's largest feminist conference took place. One of the themes seems to have been rejection of mainstream economics and science, and their replacement with "feminist economics" and "women's ways of knowing".
PeeZus Christ! "Women's ways of knowing"? Really?

Am I a close-minded bigot if I immediately write off the loonies that use that term non-ironically?

Oh, shit Po-Mo! Run away!

Looking at past events, I'm really sorry I missed the Muff March. I'll bet that shook the patriarchy to it's core (though I didn't hear about it at the time).

Their main concern at present however, seems to be that high street shops shouldn't sell magazines with pictures of tits in them: Lose the Lad's Mags. As someone who gets his hardcore porn free off the Web, I find this hard to get excited about.

I could only see one item on the Con agenda about Economics. Lot's of stuff about 'campaigning' 'toolkits' 'workshops' and 'being powerful'. Someone once said to me that "anyone who uses the term 'workshop', who isn't engaged in light engineering, is probably a twat". I think that probably applies to 'toolkit' as well.

#1165

JackRayner wrote:
KenD wrote:This weekend the UK's largest feminist conference took place. One of the themes seems to have been rejection of mainstream economics and science, and their replacement with "feminist economics" and "women's ways of knowing".
PeeZus Christ! "Women's ways of knowing"? Really?

Am I a close-minded bigot if I immediately write off the loonies that use that term non-ironically?

I wouldn't say "closed-minded", but I might suggest it's rather dangerous to ignore the consequences and ramifications of those beliefs. Which, one might argue, seems tantamount to a repudiation of science with all that might suggest.

However, along that same line you will then, no doubt, get a hoot - if you have some predilection for gallows-humour - out of this comment from Sally Strange:

Did anybody see that TED talk about hyperbolic maths, crochet, and coral reefs? Turns out mathematicians spent 100 years thinking that there was no way to model hyperbolic equations in the real world [not at all true] because none of them did crochet. Why did none of them do crochet? Because maths are for men and crochet is for women! (Coral reefs came up because their structure is hyperbolic, but dudely mathematicians didnâ€™t realize this either on account of not having being able to model the equations. Now thereâ€™s a worldwide coral reef crochet project.)

Thatâ€™s one example of how the exclusion of women slowed down mathematical discovery.

She never did explain exactly how that some women crochet justifies concluding that all women do so which would then presumably â€“ at a stretch, if you squint real hard â€“ justify the argument that there should be more women in the field of mathematics. Nor did she, equivalently or alternatively â€“ on the other side of the nature-nurture coin â€“ try to prove that some intrinsic and genetic feature of â€œwomen-hoodâ€, manifesting itself in the ability to crochet, would likewise justify the inclusion of more women â€“ apart from any other considerations â€“ in that field.

â€œParallel-logicâ€, indeed.

Another case in point I like to trot out is this bit from a review by Dawkins of the book Intellectual Impostures by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont:

Richard Dawkins wrote:The feminist 'philosopher' Luce Irigaray is another who gets whole-chapter treatment from Sokal and Bricmont. In a passage reminiscent of a notorious feminist description of Newton's Principia (a "rape manual"), Irigaray argues that E=mc2 is a "sexed equation". Why? Because "it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us" (my emphasis of what I am rapidly coming to learn is an 'in' word). Just as typical of this school of thought is Irigaray's thesis on fluid mechanics. Fluids, you see, have been unfairly neglected. "Masculine physics" privileges rigid, solid things. Her American expositor Katherine Hayles made the mistake of re-expressing Irigaray's thoughts in (comparatively) clear language. For once, we get a reasonably unobstructed look at the emperor and, yes, he has no clothes:
The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids... From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence. The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders.

Crazier than shit-house rats.

guest2 · #1166

Plonk wrote:Shouldn't he be under medical supervision or something? The youtube comment section on a video like that is the last place he needs to be, given his fragile state.

In the US, the authorities can not hold your for psychiatric care unless you are an IMMEDIATE physical threat to the safety of either yourself or others. This is why we have such a huge homeless problem in the US. You can be crazy as fuck so long as you are not an immediate physical threat.

Given that that note was posted on 8/13, I certainly hope that he has been provided with out patient services and is with the care of a therapist for dealing with his issues. I don't imagine the the problems he has that would drive him to that would suddenly *poof* disappear in less than a week's time.

#1167

Dick Strawkins wrote:'The Happy Atheist' has dropped out of the top 100 atheist books on Amazon, less than a week after it's release. :shock:
Remember, we are not talking about the overall bestseller list - this is the specialized list of atheist books, a much smaller playing field

Amazon UK only has it in hardback: RRP Â£15.44 (For 208 pages? Do fuck off!). Amazon offer Â£13.49. 20 new from Â£8.68. 9 used from Â£11.10.

#86 in Books > Mind, Body & Spirit > Other Religious & Spiritual Practices > Agnosticism & Atheism

#1168

bovarchist wrote:New post from Damien makes the Pit out as just like FTB, just...I dunno. You read it, see what you think.

http://www.skepticink.com/backgroundpro ... ck-a-side/

What I want to know is, who are the "opinion leaders" here? Because I'd like to know who I'm supposed to agree with.

I would say pit has "opinion leaders" in the same way that if you pick a person, line him/her up with 9 others of your selection and then show them pictures of three sticks where one is obviously shorter than the others, then the person you've picked will choose to agree with the opinion that the sticks are all the same size, if the other 9 declare it so before him/her. In other words, conformity works in interesting ways (and everyone knows about Asch's conformity experiment).

#1169

Ä uest wrote:
Rystefn wrote:
AndrewV69 wrote:I am just going to drop this off as a handy map of the "Manosphere" for those who may be interested:

http://www.mgtowforums.com/forums/mens- ... e-map.html
http://www.anonmgur.com/up/a7a2d8191b43 ... b41c20.png
I know what most of those words mean in English, but based on my complete lack of understanding even the tiniest bit of what this graph is supposed to be communicating, I'm guessing they have different meanings in this "Manosphere" place.
I am very sympathetic to men's rights issues, and I look forward to what Andrew rights, but shit, the answer to feminist bullshit was not male bullshit.

Yet that is what we have. I do not believe it is going to get any better in the near future. But we will see.

As for the chart, I will spend some time tomorrow giving my take on what the terms mean. Sorry I am in the middle of something else right now.

#1170

My re-write of "SkeptiDoc, M.D." (original at http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... icdoc-m-d/)

PZ: Doctor, someone I know sent me email from a man who is experiencing shortness of breath and an ache in his left shoulder when he exerts himself...and he's certain it's due to the flu shot he had the week before the symptoms started. So, to protect as many people as possible, I'm telling everyone to avoid the flu shot!

SkepticDoc: Whoa, whoa, whoa, slow down! See the name on the shingle? Itâ€™s SkepticDoc. Do you have anything other than some unsubstantiated third-hand report to justify the vaccine for causing his symptoms?

PZ: What? Iâ€™m telling you she forwarded his email that said it was due to that vaccine. He tried contacting the manufacturer but they didn't even take him seriously.

SkepticDoc: Yeah, yeah, an unsubstantiated third-hand report. Do you have a plausible mechanism by which the vaccine could have led to the symptoms? Some independent corroboration that this man didn't simply develop symptomatic heart disease, which is common and is what his symptoms sound like? So far, this is just gossip.

PZ: It prompted me to come here, pay money, face your hyper-skepticism, and apparently have my attempt to be acknowledged as a savior mocked and dismissed. But what youâ€™re supposed to do now is believe me, denounce the flu vaccine, and warn all your patients not to be vaccinated. In fact, the best thing would be if the flu vaccine were removed from the market..

SkepticDoc: I understand that you're concerned by what you've heard, and you want to try to prevent people from being harmed. I would just caution you that development of the symptoms you describe might not be due to the flu vaccine. I would strongly urge that your friend have this gentleman seek medical attention immediately. He should report his symptoms to his doctor and get appropriate evaluation, rather than having people jump to conclusions that are probably not substantiated and might result in more people being harmed. And if there really were some reason to think the flu vaccine might have caused a new problem, his doctor can use the appropriate mechanism for reporting it: the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

SkepticDoc continues: Now, enough about him. How are you feeling? I understand you've been under quite a bit of stress recently. (scene fades)

SoylentAtheistGuest2 · #1171

AndrewV69 wrote:
Ä uest wrote:I am very sympathetic to men's rights issues, and I look forward to what Andrew rights, but shit, the answer to feminist bullshit was not male bullshit.
Yet that is what we have. I do not believe it is going to get any better in the near future. But we will see.

As for the chart, I will spend some time tomorrow giving my take on what the terms mean. Sorry I am in the middle of something else right now.

I looked over the chart. Deciphering their terms & conventions is about as worthwhile and useful as attempting to decipher radfem terms and conventions.

#1172

dog puke wrote:OK, OK. Enough picking on the FreeFromThoughtBloggers, eh?

Let's talk about something exciting like the new lineup for the fall television season. Here's a show I am really looking forward to watching.

[youtube]6ET5aw21dJQ[/youtube]

Awesome! :laughing-rollingyellow:

#1173

Trophy wrote:
bovarchist wrote:New post from Damien makes the Pit out as just like FTB, just...I dunno. You read it, see what you think.

http://www.skepticink.com/backgroundpro ... ck-a-side/

What I want to know is, who are the "opinion leaders" here? Because I'd like to know who I'm supposed to agree with.
I would say pit has "opinion leaders" in the same way that if you pick a person, line him/her up with 9 others of your selection and then show them pictures of three sticks where one is obviously shorter than the others, then the person you've picked will choose to agree with the opinion that the sticks are all the same size, if the other 9 declare it so before him/her. In other words, conformity works in interesting ways (and everyone knows about Asch's conformity experiment).

Damion/Damien? has a problem with franc and so he nominates franc as the opinion leader of the pit - despite the fact that not only does franc rarely post here these days.
It is worth noting that the areas of broad agreement that the pit shares with franc are probably similar to Damions own opinions - and those where franc has provoked disagreement or criticism (the cunt kick remark for example) are also those points where Damion diverges.

Damion's choice of deciding there are sides rather than principles makes it easy for him to denounce the pit and FTB and portray himself as the moderate middle grounder. It is a lazy and disengenuous option that not only fails to see the diversity of opinion present here, but also neglects the fact that the complete annihilation of the pit (if that were possible) would only shift the hordes targeting to people like him.

#1174

Rope apologist wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:
Skep tickle wrote:"The Happy Atheist" was published by Pantheon Books.

It's a bit ironic, then, that a search of references on "self-plagiarism" mostly brings up Richard Posnerâ€™s "The Little Book of Plagiarism", published in 2007...by Pantheon Books.

From page 43 of Posner's book: â€œSelf-copying becomes fraudulent and therefore plagiaristic only when the author represents his latest work to be newly composed when in fact it is a copy of an earlier work of his that readers may have read."

http://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Plagi ... 037542475X

Just checked the Amazon atheist books bestsellers list again.

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Book ... ks/12764#1

'The Happy Atheist' has dropped out of the top 100 atheist books on Amazon, less than a week after it's release. :shock:
Remember, we are not talking about the overall bestseller list - this is the specialized list of atheist books, a much smaller playing field.

At the present moment its 7.18 in the morning here in Europe and so it's the middle of the night for you lot in the US and Canada.
Now perhaps we are seeing some degree of regionalization here - all the sales of the book are coming from Americans and all the Americans are sleeping (the Amazon list is updated hourly.)
But there are a number of other American authors who are not big name writers but whose books are selling steadily - for example Peter Boghossian - leading to the unfortunate (for him) conclusion that after a wait of six years PZ's book is sinking without trace.

:violin:
Interesting. It did come up some from previous to its release, but really not that much.

The main reason I'm writing, though, is to point out that much of the sales to the largely unthinking audience left at his blog likely did occur prior to release. The highest levels I saw were shortly after he received the book and blurbed about that on Pharyngula, and those got up almost to a thousand on the Amazon list, then declined fairly rapidly. I think that relatively many were sold soon after the book was listed on Amazon, well over a year ago.

Sure, it's still not impressive no matter how you do the accounting, it's just that one has to remember that many of the sales thus far do have to include quite a few pre-release books (relatively, of course).

I think that in terms of sustainability, however, the question would be how many are sold to those besides the ones who can't quite imagine him being seriously wrong about anything. Considering that those buyers would probably be mostly after the release date, and Peezus' book has never sold very much since the release, I am thinking that it's going to be pretty much cultic sales, buyers who are the true believers. Those probably still account for a significant portion of the rather low sales figures.

I wonder how many of the pre-release buyers expected to get an original work rather than a self-plagiarised piece of copy-pasta. At least some of those buyers are probably pretty disappointed now.

#1175

Tribble wrote:Like Twana Bradley who still proclaims she innocent of manufacturing her false rape claim that, pretty much, wrecked a man's life for a long, long time.

Since that's the second time you've made that error, I'm comfortable correcting you. It's Tawana Brawley.

#1176

So Dallas is back.

IMHO this changes a lot.

Dallas is making rather serious allegations and admits as much - "Also, this is a bona-fide public accusation, for all of those keeping track of these things and may think it is some sort of conspiracy."

PZ either ignores this/waits for MS to respond (in this case, PZ presumably doesn't 'believe survivors') or links to the Tumblr again.

Either way, it can't do anything but add to how incredibly screwed up this entire situation is.

SoylentAtheistGuest2 · #1177

Dick Strawkins wrote:but also neglects the fact that the complete annihilation of the pit (if that were possible) would only shift the hordes targeting to people like him.

Hmmm... interesting battle tactic. Eliminate the slymepit leaving the skeptchick/FtB/A+ contingent without their boogieman. They will naturally have to find new ones withing the atheist/skeptic movement to go after further increasing their annoyance to everyone outside their bubble.

#1178

real horrorshow wrote:Even if PeeZus hadn't announced his 'divorce' from scepticism it's been apparent for a long while that neither he, the rest of the FC(n) nor, least of all, the Baboon Whored have any grasp on the concept of scepticism at all.

Haha...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BR_vZgCCcAA0F2G.jpg

Credit/Source

#1179

Skep tickle wrote:My re-write of "SkeptiDoc, M.D." (original at http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... icdoc-m-d/)

PZ: Doctor, someone I know sent me email from a man who is experiencing shortness of breath and an ache in his left shoulder when he exerts himself...and he's certain it's due to the flu shot he had the week before the symptoms started. So, to protect as many people as possible, I'm telling everyone to avoid the flu shot!

SkepticDoc: Whoa, whoa, whoa, slow down! See the name on the shingle? Itâ€™s SkepticDoc. Do you have anything other than some unsubstantiated third-hand report to justify the vaccine for causing his symptoms?

PZ: What? Iâ€™m telling you she forwarded his email that said it was due to that vaccine. He tried contacting the manufacturer but they didn't even take him seriously.

SkepticDoc: Yeah, yeah, an unsubstantiated third-hand report. Do you have a plausible mechanism by which the vaccine could have led to the symptoms? Some independent corroboration that this man didn't simply develop symptomatic heart disease, which is common and is what his symptoms sound like? So far, this is just gossip.

PZ: It prompted me to come here, pay money, face your hyper-skepticism, and apparently have my attempt to be acknowledged as a savior mocked and dismissed. But what youâ€™re supposed to do now is believe me, denounce the flu vaccine, and warn all your patients not to be vaccinated. In fact, the best thing would be if the flu vaccine were removed from the market..

SkepticDoc: I understand that you're concerned by what you've heard, and you want to try to prevent people from being harmed. I would just caution you that development of the symptoms you describe might not be due to the flu vaccine. I would strongly urge that your friend have this gentleman seek medical attention immediately. He should report his symptoms to his doctor and get appropriate evaluation, rather than having people jump to conclusions that are probably not substantiated and might result in more people being harmed. And if there really were some reason to think the flu vaccine might have caused a new problem, his doctor can use the appropriate mechanism for reporting it: the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

SkepticDoc continues: Now, enough about him. How are you feeling? I understand you've been under quite a bit of stress recently. (scene fades)

Nicely done!

That post and whole thread show PZ as not only descending into quack territory, but also appearing highly stressed.
He bans how many, seven people on that one thread?

#1180

goaty wrote:Hi Slymepitters,

Robert Anton Wilson was mentioned a few dozen pages back. He wrote the following after examining, then dismantling, a smear-job mounted by Lyndon LaRouche zombies on an acquaintance of his :-

"I would also like to add in this connection that every major religion, not just the Old Testament, has some version of the commandment against bearing false witness against thy neighbor. When a man's character is slandered, not just he suffers, but his wife, his children, his parents, often his friends.

Those who make a career out of spreading unproven accusations against other humans can only be forgiven if they really are so ignorant and stupid that they don't know the difference between an assertion and an evidential demonstration.

I think it's awfully late to accept that kind of ignorance as an excuse. I think we have a duty to try to know, and to act rationally,responsibly,and decently."

Love me some Robert Anton Wilson. Somewhere, in a friend's garage in Utah, along with the rest of our personal items is a box containing a shelf or so of his books.

The quote brings up the question of, when it comes to how hard to push back against the baboons, where is the line?
Everyone gets to make their own individual judgement on this and, for me, the answer varies from baboon to baboon.
I try and leave Greg Laden alone because he seems so sad and pathetic. Jen McCreight gets something of a pass because she demonstrates that one can be remarkably highly educated and still be dumb as a post. She basically doesn't know any better.

But then there's PZ Myers.
Now, since I have recently cast Adolf Hitler as PZ Myers in a series of videos I should perhaps explain why I think that's okay for someone who may very well be a good husband and father and doubtless has people who genuinely love him.
Michael Shermer might be single (translated to 'un-neutered and inherently suspect" in SJW-speak) but he has friends and relatives who love and care about him.
"Gelato Guy" amongst others is also a real person, probably with a real family, and definitely with real hopes and dreams and bills to pay.
PZ didn't give a flying fuck about the effect on the people around the targets of his spite when he started spraying horrible accusations on the basis of no evidence (good luck getting any of your "evidence" accepted as such in court, there Peez).

See, I know a little about the "collateral damage" of this kind of thing.
I once met the figure at the center of one of the current crop of US political sex scandals. I only met him once, very briefly, in the late eighties but I've been close enough to members of his family ever since then that we are still in regular e-mail contact with one of them even after we left the country. Close enough, in other words, to see the extent of the pain and embarrassment this is doing to the family.
The guy who caused the whole clusterfuck (a) admits he is guilty and (b) has done nothing (as fas as we know) remotely on a level with being a serial rapist and it's still caused mayhem in the lives of those around him.

And yet here's Peez, blithely tossing around allegations of crimes that put people in prison for decades and leave them treated as the lowest of the low even by all the other violent criminals with whom they're incarcerated.
Again, I actually don't want to see Myers bankrupted because his family are as innocent as the other families referenced above, but if there's some way for him to be humiliated beyond rehabilitation I will be very, very happy to have contributed even in a small way.

#1181

Skep tickle wrote:"The Happy Atheist" was published by Pantheon Books.

It's a bit ironic, then, that a search of references on "self-plagiarism" mostly brings up Richard Posnerâ€™s "The Little Book of Plagiarism", published in 2007...by Pantheon Books.

From page 43 of Posner's book: â€œSelf-copying becomes fraudulent and therefore plagiaristic only when the author represents his latest work to be newly composed when in fact it is a copy of an earlier work of his that readers may have read."

http://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Plagi ... 037542475X

Ironic indeed, and a case could probably be made for plagiarism.

But could anyone really be bothered? We all know that the most important thing in all this is that PZ, despite his tenure and supposed dedication to scientific inquiry is just a lazy sack of shit. End of story.

What I find very strange is Laden's insistence, and that of other commenters on one of the Amazon book reviews, that the self-plagiarised stuff in the book is simply an edit of the original drafts - those would be the blog entries. Now, I don't own the book and I'm not about to buy it, but I'd love to see how/if those blog entries were edited at all before they appeared in the book.

And just to re-iterate, I do think it's interesting that PZ would contemplate charging a fee for the site. It would absolve him of the need to justify selling a self-plagiarised book.

#1182

FrankGrimes wrote:
Skep tickle wrote:"The Happy Atheist" was published by Pantheon Books.

It's a bit ironic, then, that a search of references on "self-plagiarism" mostly brings up Richard Posnerâ€™s "The Little Book of Plagiarism", published in 2007...by Pantheon Books.

From page 43 of Posner's book: â€œSelf-copying becomes fraudulent and therefore plagiaristic only when the author represents his latest work to be newly composed when in fact it is a copy of an earlier work of his that readers may have read."

http://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Plagi ... 037542475X
Ironic indeed, and a case could probably be made for plagiarism.

But could anyone really be bothered? We all know that the most important thing in all this is that PZ, despite his tenure and supposed dedication to scientific inquiry is just a lazy sack of shit. End of story.

What I find very strange is Laden's insistence, and that of other commenters on one of the Amazon book reviews, that the self-plagiarised stuff in the book is simply an edit of the original drafts - those would be the blog entries. Now, I don't own the book and I'm not about to buy it, but I'd love to see how/if those blog entries were edited at all before they appeared in the book.

And just to re-iterate, I do think it's interesting that PZ would contemplate charging a fee for the site. It would absolve him of the need to justify selling a self-plagiarised book.

I've compared one sample essay with the original version from the old scienceblogs pharyngula.
It was very similar - the only obvious differences was the changes that were required due to the fact that the original blog post had links to a youtube clip and a picture or two; these were removed and replaced with text in the 'new' version. Everything else, however, was pretty much the same.
It also make the 'new' version very clunky.
I think PZ is used to blog posts - and these have a particular style which relies heavily on linked articles, videos or pictures. When he is forced to rely purely on his own written word it doesn't quiet work (at least not for those posts that originally were built around and online linked source.)

#1183

Skep tickle wrote:My re-write of "SkeptiDoc, M.D." (original at http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... icdoc-m-d/)

PZ: Doctor, someone I know sent me email from a man who is experiencing shortness of breath and an ache in his left shoulder when he exerts himself...and he's certain it's due to the flu shot he had the week before the symptoms started. So, to protect as many people as possible, I'm telling everyone to avoid the flu shot!

SkepticDoc: Whoa, whoa, whoa, slow down! See the name on the shingle? Itâ€™s SkepticDoc. Do you have anything other than some unsubstantiated third-hand report to justify the vaccine for causing his symptoms?

PZ: What? Iâ€™m telling you she forwarded his email that said it was due to that vaccine. He tried contacting the manufacturer but they didn't even take him seriously.

SkepticDoc: Yeah, yeah, an unsubstantiated third-hand report. Do you have a plausible mechanism by which the vaccine could have led to the symptoms? Some independent corroboration that this man didn't simply develop symptomatic heart disease, which is common and is what his symptoms sound like? So far, this is just gossip.

PZ: It prompted me to come here, pay money, face your hyper-skepticism, and apparently have my attempt to be acknowledged as a savior mocked and dismissed. But what youâ€™re supposed to do now is believe me, denounce the flu vaccine, and warn all your patients not to be vaccinated. In fact, the best thing would be if the flu vaccine were removed from the market..

SkepticDoc: I understand that you're concerned by what you've heard, and you want to try to prevent people from being harmed. I would just caution you that development of the symptoms you describe might not be due to the flu vaccine. I would strongly urge that your friend have this gentleman seek medical attention immediately. He should report his symptoms to his doctor and get appropriate evaluation, rather than having people jump to conclusions that are probably not substantiated and might result in more people being harmed. And if there really were some reason to think the flu vaccine might have caused a new problem, his doctor can use the appropriate mechanism for reporting it: the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

SkepticDoc continues: Now, enough about him. How are you feeling? I understand you've been under quite a bit of stress recently. (scene fades)

Skep Tickle MD FTW

#1184

Skep tickle wrote:My re-write of "SkeptiDoc, M.D." (original at http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... icdoc-m-d/)

PZ: Doctor, someone I know sent me email from a man who is experiencing shortness of breath and an ache in his left shoulder when he exerts himself...and he's certain it's due to the flu shot he had the week before the symptoms started. So, to protect as many people as possible, I'm telling everyone to avoid the flu shot!
<snip>

SkepticDoc: I understand that you're concerned by what you've heard, and you want to try to prevent people from being harmed. I would just caution you that development of the symptoms you describe might not be due to the flu vaccine. I would strongly urge that your friend have this gentleman seek medical attention immediately. He should report his symptoms to his doctor and get appropriate evaluation, rather than having people jump to conclusions that are probably not substantiated and might result in more people being harmed. And if there really were some reason to think the flu vaccine might have caused a new problem, his doctor can use the appropriate mechanism for reporting it: the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

SkepticDoc continues: Now, enough about him. How are you feeling? I understand you've been under quite a bit of stress recently. (scene fades)

Yes, very nice analogy to the Shermer/Jane-Doe case. But simply incredible that so many over there are unable to comprehend the difference between believing someoneâ€™s story of what they had for lunch or a pain they have, and believing an accusation that can have some very sticky consequences for any number of people. Seems a rather stark case of black-and-white thinking to me, but one is kind of horrified at the thought of what they could do to the justice system if they were ever allowed to get their mitts on it.

#1185

guest2 wrote:
Plonk wrote:Shouldn't he be under medical supervision or something? The youtube comment section on a video like that is the last place he needs to be, given his fragile state.
In the US, the authorities can not hold your for psychiatric care unless you are an IMMEDIATE physical threat to the safety of either yourself or others. This is why we have such a huge homeless problem in the US. You can be crazy as fuck so long as you are not an immediate physical threat.

Given that that note was posted on 8/13, I certainly hope that he has been provided with out patient services and is with the care of a therapist for dealing with his issues. I don't imagine the the problems he has that would drive him to that would suddenly *poof* disappear in less than a week's time.

Meh, I call bullshit attention whoring on all counts. Part of me hopes he seeks out real help before the attention-seeking actually reaches the level of real suicide attempts, but most of me doubts even that's a real concern.

#1186

SoylentAtheistGuest2 wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:but also neglects the fact that the complete annihilation of the pit (if that were possible) would only shift the hordes targeting to people like him.
Hmmm... interesting battle tactic. Eliminate the slymepit leaving the skeptchick/FtB/A+ contingent without their boogieman. They will naturally have to find new ones withing the atheist/skeptic movement to go after further increasing their annoyance to everyone outside their bubble.

Ah, but that could never happen. Do you know why? Because we're just too damned noble, that's why. We don't have it in us to shirk our duty to point and snigger; post silly pictures and go off on a tangent about something else entirely.

SoylentAtheistGuest2 · #1187

Steersman wrote:Yes, very nice analogy to the Shermer/Jane-Doe case. But simply incredible that so many over there are unable to comprehend the difference between believing someoneâ€™s story of what they had for lunch or a pain they have, and believing an accusation that can have some very sticky consequences for any number of people. Seems a rather stark case of black-and-white thinking to me, but one is kind of horrified at the thought of what they could do to the justice system if they were ever allowed to get their mitts on it.

Bob from accounting just robbed me.

#1188

Dick Strawkins wrote:Damion/Damien? has a problem with franc and so he nominates franc as the opinion leader of the pit - despite the fact that not only does franc rarely post here these days.
It is worth noting that the areas of broad agreement that the pit shares with franc are probably similar to Damions own opinions - and those where franc has provoked disagreement or criticism (the cunt kick remark for example) are also those points where Damion diverges.

Damion's choice of deciding there are sides rather than principles makes it easy for him to denounce the pit and FTB and portray himself as the moderate middle grounder. It is a lazy and disengenuous option that not only fails to see the diversity of opinion present here, but also neglects the fact that the complete annihilation of the pit (if that were possible) would only shift the hordes targeting to people like him.

He also knows firsthand that what he's saying is bullshit. He's witnessed and participated in pretty intense disagreements between regulars here. Fuck him and his imaginary golden mean.

#1189

Has anyone determined whether PZ actually knows Jane Doe or whether the acquaintance is strictly through Carrie Poppy? It seems to me there is a staggering difference. A second degree acquaintance is essentially one third the way to world population, since it's informally agreed that there are at most six degrees of separation between any two people on Earth. Two steps on Jason Theaubaaxt's "web of trust" is probably about as far as trust can ever be reasonably extended; however even there I think you're on shaky ground. How many "friends of friends" to you trust implicitly? Three steps creates a boundary so huge you've probably included several serial killers inside it. So the difference between each degree of acquaintance is huge.

#1190

muede wrote:I think there argument as to why posting the allegation was justified
goes something like this:

i. PZ is a reliable source.

ii. Rape allegations are likely to be true.

iii. Making a previously unknown, likely rapist known to the public
likely results in less rapes.

iv. Tainting one privileged man's reputation is justified, if it
likely prevents rapes.

From PZ's article and i. and ii. we get that there likely was a rape.
Making this and the rapist known, likely results in less rape (iii.).
Therefore posting the allegation was justified (iv.).

Seems reasonable...

muede

While I'm sure others will have responded to this, we have a few problems. People here have posted data that suggests that (ii) has serious problems (ie, false accusations), (iii) is also problematic - does it have any effect other than polatization of the internet readers, (iv) the ones giving the "privileged" label are themselves highly privileged and exploit their advantages all the time (i.e., how many work real jobs?) and does it actually prevent rapes? Even if it might, don't forget, you have the "bad boy" reputation that seems to get people like those who are attracted to serial killers. Definitely weird, but it happens. And if the rep of the person making the allegation is in the shitter, then there may be a positive gain towards the alleged rapist - just to show those morons they don't know what they are talking about. The last two may or may not happen, but I've seen some weird behavior and wouldn't put it past people.

However, the biggest stumbling block is (i). PZ is not a reliable source by any means. He's turned out to be as trustworthy as Ray Confort or Bill Dembski.

#1191

SoylentAtheistGuest2 wrote:
Steersman wrote:Yes, very nice analogy to the Shermer/Jane-Doe case. But simply incredible that so many over there are unable to comprehend the difference between believing someoneâ€™s story of what they had for lunch or a pain they have, and believing an accusation that can have some very sticky consequences for any number of people. Seems a rather stark case of black-and-white thinking to me, but one is kind of horrified at the thought of what they could do to the justice system if they were ever allowed to get their mitts on it.
Bob from accounting just robbed me.

Indeed. â€œYou have a record of the serial numbers of the bills that Bob supposedly took from you during that crime? Any other incriminating evidence? Bruises, contusions, etc.? If not, sorry.â€ Although, maybe more appropriately, the response might be, â€œAny proof? Otherwise that might qualify as libel.â€

But considering all of the tv shows that have been produced on the topic, one would think that such concepts might be more commonly understood.

#1192

Rystefn wrote:
guest2 wrote:
Plonk wrote:Shouldn't he be under medical supervision or something? The youtube comment section on a video like that is the last place he needs to be, given his fragile state.
In the US, the authorities can not hold your for psychiatric care unless you are an IMMEDIATE physical threat to the safety of either yourself or others. This is why we have such a huge homeless problem in the US. You can be crazy as fuck so long as you are not an immediate physical threat.

Given that that note was posted on 8/13, I certainly hope that he has been provided with out patient services and is with the care of a therapist for dealing with his issues. I don't imagine the the problems he has that would drive him to that would suddenly *poof* disappear in less than a week's time.
Meh, I call bullshit attention whoring on all counts. Part of me hopes he seeks out real help before the attention-seeking actually reaches the level of real suicide attempts, but most of me doubts even that's a real concern.

Either way, I hope people just ignore him. If they reply to him, it's either going to feed his need, thereby increasing the behavior, or it will push him to do something rash. Neither option is a good outcome.

Tangentially, I think Shermer's attorneys could use this as an example of collateral damage caused by PeePee's blog post. Shermer now has to suffer these kind of accusations where before he didn't. Even if they're untrue, they're a direct result of PeePee calling Shermer a serial rapist. This is harmful to Shermer's reputation and he should be compensated accordingly. Also, by not adhering to the C&D, PeePee has caused this to continue further than it should have, that's not going to look good to a judge and, IMO, shows PeePee's personal animosity toward Shermer.

#1193

Dick Strawkins wrote:
FrankGrimes wrote:
Ironic indeed, and a case could probably be made for plagiarism.

But could anyone really be bothered? We all know that the most important thing in all this is that PZ, despite his tenure and supposed dedication to scientific inquiry is just a lazy sack of shit. End of story.

What I find very strange is Laden's insistence, and that of other commenters on one of the Amazon book reviews, that the self-plagiarised stuff in the book is simply an edit of the original drafts - those would be the blog entries. Now, I don't own the book and I'm not about to buy it, but I'd love to see how/if those blog entries were edited at all before they appeared in the book.

And just to re-iterate, I do think it's interesting that PZ would contemplate charging a fee for the site. It would absolve him of the need to justify selling a self-plagiarised book.
I've compared one sample essay with the original version from the old scienceblogs pharyngula.
It was very similar - the only obvious differences was the changes that were required due to the fact that the original blog post had links to a youtube clip and a picture or two; these were removed and replaced with text in the 'new' version. Everything else, however, was pretty much the same.
It also make the 'new' version very clunky.
I think PZ is used to blog posts - and these have a particular style which relies heavily on linked articles, videos or pictures. When he is forced to rely purely on his own written word it doesn't quiet work (at least not for those posts that originally were built around and online linked source.)

Right. So the only editing, at least in the one case you looked at, was structural. In which case, the so-called "editing" couldn't be used as a justification for selling material that is free online. Though I have to ask, is this material still available online? My guess is - maybe, might be hard to find.

SoylentAtheistGuest2 · #1194

Steersman wrote:
SoylentAtheistGuest2 wrote:Bob from accounting just robbed me.
Indeed. â€œYou have a record of the serial numbers of the bills that Bob supposedly took from you during that crime? Any other incriminating evidence? Bruises, contusions, etc.? If not, sorry.â€ Although, maybe more appropriately, the response might be, â€œAny proof? Otherwise that might qualify as libel.â€

But considering all of the tv shows that have been produced on the topic, one would think that such concepts might be more commonly understood.

Stop your victim blaming. Someone here looks like a theft apologist & a burglar's rights advocate. Look, just forward my claim onto Franc Hoggle and maybe consider doing an introduction. See if he can publish it on his blog.

#1195

real horrorshow wrote:
JackRayner wrote:
KenD wrote:This weekend the UK's largest feminist conference took place. One of the themes seems to have been rejection of mainstream economics and science, and their replacement with "feminist economics" and "women's ways of knowing".
PeeZus Christ! "Women's ways of knowing"? Really?

Am I a close-minded bigot if I immediately write off the loonies that use that term non-ironically?
Oh, shit Po-Mo! Run away!

Looking at past events, I'm really sorry I missed the Muff March.

Muff...march? I think my PSTD was just triggered.

I'll bet that shook the patriarchy to it's core (though I didn't hear about it at the time).

As badly as Boobquake, I'm sure!

Their main concern at present however, seems to be that high street shops shouldn't sell magazines with pictures of tits in them: Lose the Lad's Mags. As someone who gets his hardcore porn free off the Web, I find this hard to get excited about

Maybe they should hook up with this moralizing cunt. They could exchange notes. The cunt [in the video] baldly asserts that these mags are behind failing marriages [I think that's more to do with the constant absence that deployments demand, and with the fact that the men probably don't want to fuck the dependapotamuses their wives have become during their absence...] and contributing to the supposed rise in sexual assaults in the military.

What a load of shit...

#1196

FrankGrimes wrote: Right. So the only editing, at least in the one case you looked at, was structural. In which case, the so-called "editing" couldn't be used as a justification for selling material that is free online. Though I have to ask, is this material still available online? My guess is - maybe, might be hard to find.

#1197

Aneris wrote:
Badger3k wrote:Nanny McFeeFee is being the dutiful follower, and posts PZ's delusions of skepticism approvingly.

Letâ€™s live like that, shall we? Whenever a friend is unhappy about something â€“ demand evidence of the unhappiness! Then demand an airtight logical argument for the unhappiness. Then give a lecture on how to develop a backbone and (use a lot of anger in the voice and facial expression here) personal responsibility. Then ask for money.
I'm not sure there's enough straw to keep them in business. Intentionally clueless or just clueless?
Oh my gawd. Going to a doctor or listening to a friend is normally not an adversial situation or where several different claims compete. Wait, perhaps for Ophelia and Myers its different. Anyway, If one friend said they are unhappy due to X and her spouse said its due to Y, what am I supposed to believe then? Exactly, remaining unconvinced by either proposition, or perhaps one sounds more plausible to me. I also don't have to strictly believe a friend when they said they ate eggs this morning, I simply have no reason why I should doubt that and just go along. If it was important, competing (contradicting) claims exist, etc. sure would I not simply believe. I can always remain merely unconvinced.

They seem to have lost all conception of nuance or scale. I also saw an article by that Martin guy at furious purpose (from what I remember, I think he's on the SJW side of the spectrum - it sure sounds like it). Not going to comment on the article, I skimmed it rather fast, but went over one of the links, from the site he quotes and favors. My jaw dropped from the "kairosfocus" in the link. For those who don't know, KF is also GEM, Gordon E Mullings, a rather virulent theist, IDiotard, and an all around blowhard. He's worse than Steers and Wonders combined. He posts over at Uncommon Descent, the ID/Discovery Institute mouthpiece. I'm not trying to poison the well, but anything used by him is suspect, as he likes to redefine things to fill his needs. I disagree with the concept of hyperskepticism as applied by the usual suspects, the same way that "scientism" gets misused all the time, and I'd rather see something from someone more honest than ol' Gordo. It doesn't give me confidence in any article written using him as a source (unless it's an example of what not to do).

Anyone want info on Gordo, just look up KF, Kairosfocus, GEM, etc over at after the bar closes. He might even have his own thread, but it's been so long I'm not sure.

#1198

Steersman wrote: However, along that same line you will then, no doubt, get a hoot - if you have some predilection for gallows-humour - out of this comment from Sally Strange:
Did anybody see that TED talk about hyperbolic maths, crochet, and coral reefs? Turns out mathematicians spent 100 years thinking that there was no way to model hyperbolic equations in the real world [not at all true] because none of them did crochet. Why did none of them do crochet? Because maths are for men and crochet is for women! (Coral reefs came up because their structure is hyperbolic, but dudely mathematicians didnâ€™t realize this either on account of not having being able to model the equations. Now thereâ€™s a worldwide coral reef crochet project.)

Thatâ€™s one example of how the exclusion of women slowed down mathematical discovery.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... c6e362.jpg

#1199

Dick Strawkins wrote:Just checked the Amazon atheist books bestsellers list again.

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Book ... ks/12764#1

'The Happy Atheist' has dropped out of the top 100 atheist books on Amazon, less than a week after it's release. :shock:
Remember, we are not talking about the overall bestseller list - this is the specialized list of atheist books, a much smaller playing field.

At the present moment its 7.18 in the morning here in Europe and so it's the middle of the night for you lot in the US and Canada.
Now perhaps we are seeing some degree of regionalization here - all the sales of the book are coming from Americans and all the Americans are sleeping (the Amazon list is updated hourly.)
But there are a number of other American authors who are not big name writers but whose books are selling steadily - for example Peter Boghossian - leading to the unfortunate (for him) conclusion that after a wait of six years PZ's book is sinking without trace.

:violin:

He does better if you filter just the Atheism books in the Kindle Store:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/di ... e_3_6_last

He's moved up to 5 from 6 in the last hour. However, he's just ahead of Jillette's nearly year old book and behind a mystery guy who writes 99 cent "Chicken Soup" type books for atheists. Not exactly a spot of distinction.

He not only wrote a me-too book 7 years too late, but he wrote it as an Everyman, which is boggling. It's not so much an evolutionary biologist's take on God as it's An Evening With Your Pal PZ Myers.

Even if he was an established author, it would be a title for completists only.

PZ WHO? Oh yeah, that guy who knows Greta Christina. Hey look, he writes cheeky fluff like her too.

#1200

JackRayner wrote:
Steersman wrote: However, along that same line you will then, no doubt, get a hoot - if you have some predilection for gallows-humour - out of this comment from Sally Strange:
...
http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... c6e362.jpg

:lol: Indeed.