Bleeding from the Bunghole

[bovarchist]

quote="Darren"]Hat tip to Christopher Becker on the Skepchick DragonCon thread. I don't know how you do it. Trying to reason with people like "marilove" must be like trying to hammer a nail with a screwdriver.

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. Silly arguments about stop signs and speeding.

Mayhew giving more details from witnesses at DragonCon: http://www.saramayhew.com/blog/index.ph ... tablegate/

"Manufactroversy" - love it.

[/quote]

I prefer "Retcontroversy". Rewriting an event to make it a bigger deal than it really was, or yourself as a bigger victim/hero than you really were.

[Service Dog]

http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-65488.html

rebecca
8th October 2006, 06:05 PM

Yeppers, I thought a lot about it and the forumites are doing such an awesome job raising money for the scholarship that Skepchicks could do more good elsewhere -- this way, a person could apply for a Skepchick scholarship in order to afford education, supplies for outreach, or yes, admission to TAM if it would be applicable.

This will be better in terms of the good we can do as well as because Skepchicks is about to become a 501(c)(3), meaning we have to make sure we stay rigorous about who gets money and for what.

I'm hoping that we can make another donation to the TAM live auction, since last year the signed Skepchick calendar brought in a few hundred dollars for the JREF.

Michael Gray
17th June 2012, 02:29 AM
"...Skepchicks is about to become a 501(c)(3), meaning we have to make sure we stay rigorous about who gets money and for what.."

How is that progressing, Rebecca?
Oct 2006? - June 2012?
"About to..."?

meg
17th June 2012, 12:06 PM

Skepchicks Limited filed for 501(c)(3) Non Profit Corporation status in the state of Massachusetts in September of 2006. These documents have been accepted and stamped by the secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which I assume means that they are indeed a 501(c)(3) non profit corporation now and have been since 2006.

I love google :)

Mahatma Kane Jeeves
21st July 2012, 01:10 PM

The problem is that Massachusetts does not confer nonprofit status. That's an IRS/Federal designation. You can do a search on the IRS website (http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0, ... 67,00.html) to find out whether an organization is a nonprofit. There are several websites where you can also view the IRS 990 filings for nonprofit groups: Foundation Center (http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/990finder/), Guidestar (http://www.guidestar.org/), Economic Research Institute (http://www.eri-nonprofit-salaries.com/i ... NPO.Search).

Skepchicks Limited does not appear in the IRS database, either as a current or revoked organization. They also do not appear in any of the other databases.

The states have different reporting requirements for corporations (both non and for profit) operating within their boundaries. Massachusetts seems to simply require registration with the Articles of Organization for the group and an annual report. The annual report is a simple form stating you are still in operation at the same address, with the same officers, and the date of the last annual meeting.

The day after your post, Massachussetts revoked the Skepchicks charter. I presume because they failed to file any annual reports from 2006 to the present.

Massachusetts Corporations Database entry for Skepchicks limited (http://corp.sec.state.ma.us/corp/corpse ... =593820943)

As far as I can tell, Skepchicks has never been a nonprofit organization in the US.

What about the UK?

I could be wrong, but it looks like nonprofits in the UK are considered Community Interest Corporations (http://www.bis.gov.uk/cicregulator). However, they are included with all other corprations in the Companies House Web Check Servcice (http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/toolsT ... Info.shtml).

Skepchicks doesn't appear there either.

[Tony Parsehole]

That "Lsuoma's Angels" pic is supposed to be the current crop of mods, by the way - not Scented Nectar, Abbie and Sacha.

:shifty:

Oh great, a Smoggy Hitler. Now we just need A Brummie to voice Goebbels.

I somehow managed to click on the wrong post there. I was referring to Parsehole's voice acting gig.

I knew man, I knew.

[Gumby]

Oh, oh. How about if I find 50 honest men - or chill girls? Enough to spare my town?

Wear that avatar I did for you for one week and I will spare your life.

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... 1378092822

[curriejean]

What's wrong with America, anyway? Can't the teachers take a little trolling from fucking teenagers? Jesus, when I was on high school, I made the objective of my mornings to make my teacher's life the worst possible, because I hated the school, the teachers, and my fellow students. I would have loved to have a spineless bitch like this for me to break and drive to madness and suicide.

Yes, I was kinda evil on my late teens.

But if they didn't take this seriously, then they'd have to stop taking their rape-themed surveys of high schoolers seriously, and then they'd have to accept that students don't give a shit about their surveys and just write incriminating shit to fuck it up a lot of the time because it's not like this is a part of their mandatory education, and then the social sciences themselves would implode. KABOOM.

[bovarchist]

Now, here’s a good rule of thumb if you are unsure whether you are harassing or bullying someone—ask yourself: would you do or say this to your mother, sister, or eventually your daughters? If the answer is no, then, it is inappropriate to do or say to a person you do not know very well.”

Terrible example...she's obviously never met my mother or sisters. My mom's sense of humor is more twisted than mine is.

[Lsuoma]

Tribbles: bet you can't have only one.

They scared me shitless as a kid. The way they just kept coming and coming. Ugh...

What's that, then? Some sort of tribble bukkake?

[yomomma]

Oh my, two more $500 donations to Michael Shermer's legal fund, total currently at $6445.

I guess he won't have to sell that bicycle after all :lol:

It's so... beautiful...

Might Lancelot and Dogberry be the same person matching the $1000, or two friends popping in to match one another and the $1000? Both accounts have no other activity but their $500 donations, one hour ago. Why does this interest me? I dunno. I just love watching the number climb. And as a lowly peon who could only afford to drop $5, that others can put down this much makes me buggy eyed.

It wouldn't surprise me if Lancelot and Dogberry were the Bier brothers (the financial, Ivy league educated brothers behind "The Skeptical Libertarian"). They've been pretty outspoken about their anger towards PZ and his shmeargating Shermer. Also, Shermer has a lot of Libertarian celebrity friends, like Penn Jillette and the "Mythbusters" guys and Dennis Miller, who's had him on his show several times. If those guys get wind of it, I'm sure it will continue to rise.

[yomomma]

oops, meant to say *the financial advisors and Ivy league educated brothers...

[Darren]

Part1, Noelplum first raises the question:
link to video

I love this. In honor of Fermi's Paradox, I'm calling this "Plum's paradox": Given the large number of people who disagree with PZ, and the low probability of them all being trolls, why aren't any posting on his blog?

[Ä uest]

What's wrong with America, anyway? Can't the teachers take a little trolling from fucking teenagers? Jesus, when I was on high school, I made the objective of my mornings to make my teacher's life the worst possible, because I hated the school, the teachers, and my fellow students. I would have loved to have a spineless bitch like this for me to break and drive to madness and suicide.

Yes, I was kinda evil on my late teens.

But if they didn't take this seriously, then they'd have to stop taking their rape-themed surveys of high schoolers seriously, and then they'd have to accept that students don't give a shit about their surveys and just write incriminating shit to fuck it up a lot of the time because it's not like this is a part of their mandatory education, and then the social sciences themselves would implode. KABOOM.

I left a pretty reasonable (not spam, not libel, no threats, no dox, ...) comment there to the effect that I am glad my professors had a sense of humor and a sense of proportion. It went to moderation (I think it contained the word "shit"), and then never showed up.

As I said, I am glad my professors had a sense of humor and a sense of proportion.

[curriejean]

I left a pretty reasonable (not spam, not libel, no threats, no dox, ...) comment there

I think I found the trouble.

[Steersman]

Oh, oh. How about if I find 50 honest men - or chill girls? Enough to spare my town?

Wear that avatar I did for you for one week and I will spare your life.

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... 1378092822

:lol: That seems a reasonable compromise, a reasonable amount of "penance"; hate to see it override my reason for it in the first place. But be later today though ....

[Dornier Pfeil]

Context is new media and its capacity to create non intellectual "safe zones".

I think part of the problem with places like Pharyngula/A+(though certainly not limited to them) is that they have corrupted the very idea of a safe zone/space/place. When first conceived they represented a place where people(at first, students) with issues(of whatever kind) could safely explore who they were, what had happened to them, etc. As the concept is used today it is more like a medieval fortress from which they sally forth from to fight the good fight and then provide a place where they can hide after the fight when the enemy(quite naturally) reacts. The problem with fortresses is they attract a lot of attention. Add in the problem that corrupting the safe place concept ruins its use for its original intended purpose as the gertrud/mattir meltdown demonstrated.

I shudder to think of what Sagan would say.

For me Sagan's gentle classiness is the universal benchmark. Bronowski's too. He is sorely missed.

[Al Stefanelli]

http://websitesonadime.com/memememememe.jpg

[Skep tickle]

Umm... I'll probably just return to lurking. My days of being the only theist on a site of atheists (while fun and remembered fondly) are probably behind me.

But since I delurked for a moment-- congrats Abbie on the postdoc. Have you announced where you'll be working?

Easy peasy, you don't have to talk about religion at all really, just skepticism and scientific inquiry maybe, or simply make jokes at the expense of PZ and the baboons. Would be kinda fun to hear more of your putdowns.

I am very selfish.

Can't recall a lot of discussion about religion per se here, since I've been here anyway. It's more about skeptics and true believers.

Btw has anyone given you an official "fuck off" yet?

Fuck off Heddle, and fuck re-lurking.

Why thank you for the traditional welcome.

Oh, and hello to Windy.

You can do what you want, heddle. But let's be clear - no divine interference, you hear?

Don't think we didn't notice that your name is already blue, at the 6 post mark, when atheists have to wait till post #10 for that to occur. :snooty:


:D

[zenbabe]

Rebecca = "left wing Palin." QFT. As dumb and self-serving as Palin, just much much less famous.

RW: I can see rapists from my house!

Never put those two (Palin and RW) together in my head, but man that seems an apt comparison.
RW tosses out the 'red meat' to the crowd in the exact same way Palin was criticized for doing so simplistically. And gets much the same smug, self-righteous smile when she's cheered for it. Traveling on the dimes earned by the fans, with a sense of entitlement to the cash that beams from her.

Yeesh!
And yet the invites keep on rolling in huh?

[Steersman]

<snip>
Haven’t read it yet, but I sort of think that the SGU interview that Brive1987 referenced above provides somewhat of an answer (linky?). I think this place kind provides the contrast with Pharyngula that emphasizes the point that, once a forum starts down the path of heavy moderation and arbitrary banning the more or less inevitable result is places like Pharyngula and AtheismPlus. Someone provided this link to an article on Internet Silos which provides further justification.

SGU interview = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/podcast/sgu/424 @ 58:58

Context is new media and its capacity to create non intellectual "safe zones". The example used is anti-vax - but the terms used by Steve (trolls etc) make me think his point was made with a broader point in mind.

Thanks for the link and for the time stamp.

Its funny - I used the link to the article on silos at the bottom of the post that got me shot on pharyngula.

If you still have the text of that comment you might want to consider posting it here. Further evidence of PZ’s rather draconian if not totally deluded and bigoted moderation policies. Curious too, considering that you seem to have posted quite frequently over there over some period of time – one would have thought that might have bought you something in the way of some consideration, that you weren’t tainted with “The Slyme!!!!!11!” then. Maybe that’s what brought you over from “The Dark Side!”.

PZ is the clichéd "only soldier in a group that's marching in time". I wonder if it even registers that:

Sam Harris thinks he is the Shepherd of Trolls - http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/wrestling-the-troll

Steve Novella finds him unhelpful - http://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde ... -religion/

Massimo Pigliucci is unimpressed - http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com. ... ddles.html

I can't think of three more different or better qualified Skeptics to be benchmarked by. I shudder to think of what Sagan would say.

I’ve read that post of Pigliucci’s and quoted or linked to it here several times. Really kind of cuts PZ off at the knees - "juvenile hormonal rage" was I think one of the choicer terms he used.

[Hunt]

Looks like Pharyngula is unveiling a new oppression prototype, "adultism" on the "Teach Naked" post:

Adultism is the discriminatory belief that children are less mature than adults just because they're children. Some might say that adultism is tautologously true.

Someone has a lucid moment:

Cyranothe2nd, there's no such thing as a moderate ally
2 September 2013 at 12:35 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Do you think it’s equally discriminatory or “adultist” for kids to not work 8 hours a day, not be able to drive or vote, or legally drink?

For real, a lot of people are spouting straight-up nonsense in this thread.

But then,

ischemgeek
2 September 2013 at 12:37 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
It becomes discrimination when you use it as an ad-hominem attack against something a young person is saying (as a 26 year old who passes for 8 years younger, I run into that a lot and it’s fucking infuriating), or when you try to conflate “young” and “asshole”. Most of the preteens I work with in my martial arts and science outreach are freaking awesome people who would never think of conducting anonymous sexual harassment. Young and asshole are not synonyms, and implying they are is an insult to the great kids I work with

I think it's kind of safe to assume that even if the type of things written on anonymous reviews constitute sexual harassment, a prerequisite for writing most of them is a functional sex drive. In other news, 8 year olds are usually not that into downloading porn.

[KiwiInOz]

Sigh. We were young back then. That was soooooo last decade. Although I'm still tiresome. FWIW we may have argued during that time period, but I was not on the ID or DI side of the Dover case. Peace.

I do so look forward to you, me, Steersman and Wonderist getting into a debate.

I'm picking that this will precipitate the heat death of the universe.

[Steersman]

73
Esteleth, statistically significant to p ≤ 0.001
2 September 2013 at 11:03 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

It also privileges those who can manage to be “rational” about something hurtful over those who can’t. Which is to say that it privileges those who are either doing the hurting or otherwise don’t know what it is to be hurt.

Regarding her second sentence, only at Pharyngula, a site that purports to hew to a scientific/skeptical worldview, would being rational be a privilege that needs to be checked.

I always suspected, but it's nice to see confirmation of it. There were a lot of insulting comments in that thread about "vulcans," no doubt referring to people who want to have a reasonable debate without a lot of name-calling, naming and shaming or accusations of bad faith.

"Don't you refute my points with your perfectly valid response, you logic-privileged, cis-gendered, oppressive fuck! I bet you're an evil MRA rapist! My false accusations should carry as much weight as your logical argument!"
:roll:

Yea, that comment of hers really looked well out in left field, if even in the ball park. Although I think she might well have a bit of a point other than the one on the top of her head. For instance, there is Hume’s well-known “`Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.” Reason itself is relatively credible, if limited, but that tends to mask or get conflated with the assumptions from which it starts – the “sensitive dependence on intitial conditions” that is the hallmark of both chaotic and emergent systems.

And that seems to be part and parcel of the re-ignited “controversy” surrounding Sam Harris’ argument, if I understand it correctly, that science can determine values, on which Benson, Blackford, and Coyne have recently weighed in on.

So while I think Esteleth and others in that decidedly benighted neck of the woods tend to make too much out of throwing stones at rationality – part of their dogmatic, black-and-white, either-or thinking, I expect – there seems to be some justification for thinking that just because an argument is “rational” is no “reason” to think that it should necessarily carry the day. Seems that one needs to give some thought to the values in play as well.

[Kareem]

http://websitesonadime.com/memememememe.jpg

Kind of weird that we hear more about abuse from Watson than someone like Zinnia Jones. Wouldn't someone who has their gender denied on a daily basis face more hardship? Yet, it's always Watson and there's always people ready to say "poor baby."

[James Caruthers]

http://websitesonadime.com/memememememe.jpg

http://www.antifeministtech.info/wp-con ... cepalm.jpg

There are no words.

[Al Stefanelli]

http://websitesonadime.com/memememememe.jpg

Kind of weird that we hear more about abuse from Watson than someone like Zinnia Jones. Wouldn't someone who has their gender denied on a daily basis face more hardship? Yet, it's always Watson and there's always people ready to say "poor baby."

A person isn't a true failure until they are content to blame their failures on everyone else...

Zinnia has more integrity in her pinky toe than the entire FC(n) combined.

[Darren]

http://websitesonadime.com/memememememe.jpg

Perhaps she should try that line on Pharyngula and see where it gets her.

Protip: If you want people to stop treating you like an X, stop acting like an X.

[Steersman]

http://websitesonadime.com/memememememe.jpg

http://www.antifeministtech.info/wp-con ... cepalm.jpg

There are no words.

Indeed. If she had said "Don't proposition me in the elevator at 4 in the morning" instead of the more categorical and implied "Guys, don't do that to me [and all of my sisters]" then I rather doubt she would have caught as much flack as she has.

[Service Dog]

Skepchick's endless quest for tax-deductable status...

January 20, 2010, Skepchick.org:

Further contributions can be directed to the Skepchicon section of the Women Thinking Free website. Remember, all contributions, both to the Point campaign and to WTF are tax deductible.

Elyse February 21, 2010

~Profit-Free Non-Profitatrix. Also available as a job for men! We need a lawyer or a 501(c)(3) organization to help us obtain our own 501(c)(3) status.

Elyse April 19, 2010
WTF is the Women Thinking Free. It’s the foundation that I spearheaded with the help of the Skepchicamp planning committee after the enormous success of Skepchicamp. The Man kind of forced our hand on this one since we legally can’t hold another Skepchicamp without becoming an official nonprofit corporation in Illinois. And we can’t afford to hold another Skepchicamp without tax exempt status.
....
Any day now, we’ll be officially filing our paperwork to the IRS to become a 501c3 organization. That status once approved, is retroactive for 27 months. So your donations now will be tax deductible!

Elyse August 28, 2010

Earlier this year, while organizing Skepchicamp here in Chicago, we ran into the unbelievable situation of having raised so much money, we had to register with the state as a nonprofit organization. So I asked my fellow organizers what they wanted to do. We could keep things the way they were and keep doing a Skepchicamp. Or we could use this opportunity to keep doing Skepchicamp, but also form a 501c3 and save the fucking world. By now, you know what we chose.

Brian Gregory April 18, 2011
“Elyse Anders is President of the Women Thinking Free Foundation, a non-profit organization working to increase awareness of science, critical thinking and skepticism in a world clouded with pseudoscience, homeopathy and psychic predictions. She is a mother of two, who wants to counter the misinformation & pseudoscience being promoted against vaccines by the likes of Jenny McCarthy and others. In November 2010 she spearheaded a successful effort to have a national movie theater chain removed anti-vaccine service announcement that were scheduled to air before films. She also writes for the popular blog Skepchick.” ~ Thanks to the official TAM9 speaker listing for the picture and biography.

Melanie July 22, 2013

The event is brought to you by Women Thinking, Inc., the non-profit spin-off of Skepchick.

Elyse Anders
Founder, President, Chair
Women Thinking, inc

February 2010 – March 2013 (3 years 2 months)
• Founder and President/Chair of the Board for non-profit currently pending 501c3 status

Julia Burke, of Skepchick.org, July 19, 2013 [*regarding FtBCon]

Currently, our* 501(c)(3) status is pending approval with the IRS. All donations received during this time may be treated as tax-deductible contributions. We are confident that our application will be successful. However, we are required to inform you that should our application be deferred or denied your donation would not be tax-deductible.

Rebecca Watson July 22, 2013

The event is brought to you by Women Thinking, Inc., the non-profit spin-off of Skepchick. The organization does amazing work (think Hug Me! I’m Vaccinated, for example) and can do even more with your help, if you can spare a buck or two. Click here to donate.

[Skep tickle]

The two things I find most amusing in the "new rules" thread:

1. The product:

Your post will be edited if:

You use bigoted slurs.
It’s a “First!” post.
You violate others’ confidentiality.
You are a banned user sneaking back under a pseudonym.
You are being pointlessly abusive or argumentative.
You ignore requests by other readers to stop a behavior.

You may be banned from a comment thread if:

You cannot control your posting habits, and are dominating the discussion.
Your comments are repetitive, especially if you repeat arguments that have already been addressed.
You demonstrate that you are unwilling to have read previous comments or the opening post.

You may be confined to only posting on Thunderdome threads if:

You are consistently unable to get along well with others.
Your ideas qualify you to be a good chewtoy for our more argumentative commenters.

You will be banned from the blog if:

You do not heed orders from PZ Myers.
You make threats of physical violence or harassment.
You use bigoted slurs.
You violate others’ confidentiality.
You post material from any restricted forum (such as a closed Facebook group or mailing list).
You try to post under multiple pseudonyms: sockpuppetry is not allowed.
You are found to be using an invalid email address.
Your posts need to be edited too often.
You are egregiously abusive, and ignore requests from others.
You are relentlessly negative — why are you here if you have nothing positive to say?
You are spamming a url. Relevant links to your own website are OK.
You have a known reputation as an internet troll (the Dennis Markuze rule).

<snip>

...

1) Where are the new rules posted at Pharyngula? (Myers' link to "standard rules page" goes to an 8/2012 post)

2) There are now monitors who'll get email from those who click the "Contact the Monitors" link. (Well, at least those who have a mail program set up. How does "contacting the monitor" then work for people who are using public computers in libraries, computers that aren't their own, etc? Or, those who don't want the monitors to see/have their email address?

3) What's different, besides the monitors and:
(a) "don't violate confidentiality" + "don't post stuff that's private" + "don't report stuff from elsewhere"
(b) list of some additional stuff that'll get edited out (by Myers, as he hasn't given anyone else the keys to the castle)
(c) posting "First!" is now an editable offense - and having to have your posts edited too much can be a bannable offense

Why couldn't/didn't Myers just clip out the stuff Mattir copied over from FB group & say sternly, "Don't do that". What, there wasn't a rule against it, so therefore he couldn't use his judgment as the blogmaster? Mattir would have complained to Ed? What?

Also, why is "First!" now an editable offense? I can understand if he's kind of sick of it after all these years, but it's a max of 1 post per thread, seems inoffensive AFAICT, and doesn't the possibility of being "First!" keep people clued to his blog?

4) Anyone see some subjectivity in the rules above (esp in the ones in darker color)? Anyone think that there's a just a smidgeon of a chance that people (esp out-group) who express disagreement might be more likely to be accused of any/all of the following (list below, from list above), than in-group who are behaving like the in-group currently behaves?
"pointlessly abusive or argumentative"
"repetitive"
"demonstrate that you are unwilling to...",
"consistently unable to get along well with others"
"ideas [that] qualify you to be a good chewtoy"
"egregiously abusive"
"relentlessly negative"

[ERV]

http://websitesonadime.com/memememememe.jpg

http://www.antifeministtech.info/wp-con ... cepalm.jpg

There are no words.

Indeed. If she had said "Don't proposition me in the elevator at 4 in the morning" instead of the more categorical and implied "Guys, don't do that to me [and all of my sisters]" then I rather doubt she would have caught as much flack as she has.

That, and not attacking some kids for disagreeing with her.

[Ä uest]

(c) ... having to have your posts edited too much can be a bannable offense

I like it. This rule puts them even further down the path to atheismplus.

[curriejean]

Zinnia has more integrity in her pinky toe than the entire FC(n) combined.

I question this on the basis of incidents surrounding Chelsea (Bradley) Manning.

[Gumby]

http://websitesonadime.com/memememememe.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/ ... violin.gif

[Al Stefanelli]

Zinnia has more integrity in her pinky toe than the entire FC(n) combined.

I question this on the basis of incidents surrounding Chelsea (Bradley) Manning.

The comment was based on the comparison between RW and ZJ that K made. Nobody's perfect. Lmao.

[codelette]

Skepchick's endless quest for tax-deductable status...

January 20, 2010, Skepchick.org:

Further contributions can be directed to the Skepchicon section of the Women Thinking Free website. Remember, all contributions, both to the Point campaign and to WTF are tax deductible.

Elyse February 21, 2010

~Profit-Free Non-Profitatrix. Also available as a job for men! We need a lawyer or a 501(c)(3) organization to help us obtain our own 501(c)(3) status.

Elyse April 19, 2010
WTF is the Women Thinking Free. It’s the foundation that I spearheaded with the help of the Skepchicamp planning committee after the enormous success of Skepchicamp. The Man kind of forced our hand on this one since we legally can’t hold another Skepchicamp without becoming an official nonprofit corporation in Illinois. And we can’t afford to hold another Skepchicamp without tax exempt status.
....
Any day now, we’ll be officially filing our paperwork to the IRS to become a 501c3 organization. That status once approved, is retroactive for 27 months. So your donations now will be tax deductible!

Elyse August 28, 2010

Earlier this year, while organizing Skepchicamp here in Chicago, we ran into the unbelievable situation of having raised so much money, we had to register with the state as a nonprofit organization. So I asked my fellow organizers what they wanted to do. We could keep things the way they were and keep doing a Skepchicamp. Or we could use this opportunity to keep doing Skepchicamp, but also form a 501c3 and save the fucking world. By now, you know what we chose.

Brian Gregory April 18, 2011
“Elyse Anders is President of the Women Thinking Free Foundation, a non-profit organization working to increase awareness of science, critical thinking and skepticism in a world clouded with pseudoscience, homeopathy and psychic predictions. She is a mother of two, who wants to counter the misinformation & pseudoscience being promoted against vaccines by the likes of Jenny McCarthy and others. In November 2010 she spearheaded a successful effort to have a national movie theater chain removed anti-vaccine service announcement that were scheduled to air before films. She also writes for the popular blog Skepchick.” ~ Thanks to the official TAM9 speaker listing for the picture and biography.

Melanie July 22, 2013

The event is brought to you by Women Thinking, Inc., the non-profit spin-off of Skepchick.

Elyse Anders
Founder, President, Chair
Women Thinking, inc

February 2010 – March 2013 (3 years 2 months)
• Founder and President/Chair of the Board for non-profit currently pending 501c3 status

Julia Burke, of Skepchick.org, July 19, 2013 [*regarding FtBCon]

Currently, our* 501(c)(3) status is pending approval with the IRS. All donations received during this time may be treated as tax-deductible contributions. We are confident that our application will be successful. However, we are required to inform you that should our application be deferred or denied your donation would not be tax-deductible.

Rebecca Watson July 22, 2013

The event is brought to you by Women Thinking, Inc., the non-profit spin-off of Skepchick. The organization does amazing work (think Hug Me! I’m Vaccinated, for example) and can do even more with your help, if you can spare a buck or two. Click here to donate.

That 501(c)(3) status for Skepchick...

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3),

...not gonna happen.
Source: http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Prof ... anizations

[James Caruthers]

I don't even mind what Watson did at Elevatorgate, even though it was drama-mongering and pointless. She acted like a spoiled brat and she caught a ton of shit for it. Some deserved, some not. It still sucks the man accused of potential never got to tell his side, but that's par for the course by now.

But every single goddamn thing she has done since then has only proved her commitment to lining her own pocket, pumping up her victim-ego and bullying others IRL for having opinions that differ from hers. People treat her bad because she's the worst kind of pretentious, knee-jerk liberal, holier-than-thou shitbird. And then her answer to all of the criticism she gets is "oh look at what a victim I am, I sure wish some big strong men would swoop in to help me fight my battles for me." That last part is implied rather than stated. :lol:

http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/wp-conte ... inting.jpg
^DragonCon :lol:

Man: "Miss, all I said was your merch table is in clear violation of the Con rules. I wouldn't even be here, but the vendors pay a lot of money for a space at the Con, and you're over here at the free tables selling some of the same items. You're not supposed to use fan tables to make huge bank, it's really more for your personal, branded merch."

Becky: "....b-b-buuut how w-w-will I b-b-break even on my plane ticket? Raaaaaaaaapppeee! *faints away*"

Not pictured: Internet Social Justice Attack Dogs, standing by on Twitter to leap to Becky's aid.

[Tony Parsehole]

http://websitesonadime.com/memememememe.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/ ... violin.gif

Who would have thought it? A grandstanding bully like Watson is actually a delicate, downtrodden snowflake.

http://weknowmemes.com/generator/upload ... 141686.jpg

[James Caruthers]

*potential RAPE* dammit edit button

[codelette]

arghhh...this is the quote

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual.

[Aneris]

Oh noes. We must set up a petition to help the commentariat. The new rules will be the end of nerd, caine, sallystrange, chigau, tony douche and the others, who are relentlessly negative and repetetive and who don't get along well with others. What about the lulz?

[Tony Parsehole]

Oh noes. We must set up a petition to help the commentariat. The new rules will be the end of nerd, caine, sallystrange, chigau, tony douche and the others, who are relentlessly negative and repetetive and who don't get along well with others. What about the lulz?

I'm glad there are no rules like that here. Relentless negativity and repetition are my forte.

[Tribble]

Skepchick's endless quest for tax-deductable status...

...

lol.

It's not hard to do. I had quite a few clients who'd formed their own churches. Also had one guy who formed some baby-sitting/daycare NPO for low-income women. He was a great guy, couldn't manage his books or finances worth a crap, but he did good work in the community so I comped him.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, anyone with a HS education could do it with this book:

http://www.nolo.com/products/media/cata ... np11_2.gif

How to Form a Nonprofit Corporation

Anthony Mancuso, Attorney

May 2013, 11th Edition

Start and run a nonprofit in your state with this complete guide. Get step-by-step instructions for obtaining federal 501(c)(3) tax exemption and qualifying for public charity status with the IRS. Plus, learn how to:

complete an IRS tax-exemption application
prepare articles of incorporation
write the bylaws of your nonprofit

Includes all the legal forms you need!

Seriously, $35 plus S&H. And it's not that hard. I just think she's lazy and doesn't want to give up the control.

[Gumby]

I'm glad there are no rules like that here. Relentless negativity and repetition are my forte.

Fuck you, you loser douchebag. Go kill yourself.
Fuck you, you loser douchebag. Go kill yourself.
Fuck you, you loser douchebag. Go kill yourself.

Hey yeah you're right, this is kinda fun! :dance:

[Parody Accountant]

arghhh...this is the quote

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual.

I believe this just means they have to be publicly named on their charter / board of directors. There are plenty of sleazy, but quite legal 'charities' that have no problem getting 501(c)(3) status.

This is much more likely a failure to properly send the paperwork. Incompetence, and trusting in whoever is in charge. Had a situation like this at a local group - wife's pals, not my group - and the person just kept telling all of us to wait, wait, wait... The person just was out of their league. It took 30 days to get approved the second go around, and it didn't take lawyers. It's too easy to google an example version. The only trick is that the form costs several hundred dollars to fill out and have evaluated by the IRS. The IRS was mandated to have a free e-file option, but as of a few years ago, it didn't exist.

[another lurker]

Oh noes. We must set up a petition to help the commentariat. The new rules will be the end of nerd, caine, sallystrange, chigau, tony douche and the others, who are relentlessly negative and repetetive and who don't get along well with others. What about the lulz?

I have had run ins with Chigau. Shit has double standards, and seems to get off on just being mean for the pleasure of it.

[comslave]

http://websitesonadime.com/memememememe.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/ ... violin.gif

We'll need to contract with Intel to make a violin small enough.

[agarybuseychristmas]

http://i.imgur.com/Klxj4YW.jpg

[FrankGrimes]

[off topic/]

For Gefan and anyone else interested in audio for video...

FWIW, Audacity is very much the audio equivalent of MS Paint. REAPER is a huge step up and is ridiculously cheap ($60). It's also very easy to use.

http://www.cockos.com/reaper/about.php

Carry on...

[Gumby]

We'll need to contract with Intel to make a violin small enough.

I hear there's been significant advances in the field of quantum violins.

[Ä uest]

http://i.imgur.com/Klxj4YW.jpg

I cannot believe any SJW or frankly anyone for that matter could be so stupid as to make youtube videos while driving.

It is not clever, not edgy, not hip. It is stupid, makes you look like a dumbass, and makes me highly skeptical of anything you may have to say.

I am hopeful it is only a tree that Dillahunty ends up hitting.

[Skep tickle]

Re claiming charitable status, seeking donations for a charity that isn't (yet) one legally - wow - that could be really serious.

- "Women Thinking" is based in Chicago, per its twitter account @womenthinking

- Used to be "Women Thinking Free Foundation", now "Women Thinking, Inc"

- Elyse Anders heads it

- Donations have been sought for it (in the past, at least); in this 3/2012 post at Skepchick by Elyse Anders, for example, there are 3 lines that link people to "fundraisers" for the organization, one is called (in the blog post) a "charity brackets fundraiser".

While nothing in her post says it's "charitable" or "tax deductible", the casual reader could be forgiven for thinking it is.

Those 3 links each lead to the old WTF foundation .org page, which redirects to the current WT, Inc .org page: http://www.womenthinking.org/

- Current website has a donate button, with no indication as to whether or not the donation is charitable, nor the tax status (current, pending, or sought) of the group

- Women Thinking is not listed in IRS database of charities (as a registered charity or as having filed a From 990-N). It's pretty typical for it to take 2 yrs to get IRS status as a 501(c)(3). My understanding is that you register first with the state, then send the IRS the paperwork you did for the state, plus some extra paperwork, then wait.

- Women Thinking is not listed in Illinois Attorney General's Charitable Database: http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/ ... /index.jsp:

The Charitable Database is a list of public charities and private foundations which are registered with the Attorney General’s Office and in compliance with the reporting requirements imposed upon them by Illinois law. You can search by charity name, charity number, FEIN number, city, state and/or zip code.

-Women Thinking Free Foundation has an open FB page, 411 members; there's no indication (obvious, at least) there that it's a charity, or seeking that status, or seeking donations: https://www.facebook.com/groups/115345208494917/

[Lsuoma]

[bimg]http://i.imgur.com/Klxj4YW.jpg[/bimg]

I cannot believe any SJW or frankly anyone for that matter could be so stupid as to make youtube videos while driving.

It is not clever, not edgy, not hip. It is stupid, makes you look like a dumbass, and makes me highly skeptical of anything you may have to say.

I am hopeful it is only a tree that Dillahunty ends up hitting.

Cop car. Pleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseplease!

[Southern]

*sigh... if only those assholes governing my country would take the hint that if there's a women willing to risk her life and swim fucking 110 miles to escape from El Coma Andante personal gulag, it's not because it's a place you should be importing doctors from... specially not importing them and paying their salaries to El Coma Andante, basically paying to use his slaves...

She's an American you dumpling, she isn't escaping from anywhere.

Woe is my, I'm an idiot. Again.

A little more, and can compete in the games and try to dethrone oolon's winning streak:

[youtube]KDPTC-yAmgo[/youtube]

[Skep tickle]

It's pretty typical for it to take 2 yrs to get IRS status as a 501(c)(3). My understanding is that you register first with the state, then send the IRS the paperwork you did for the state, plus some extra paperwork, then wait.

BTW, I could of course be completely wrong about the order of operations and the time frame. And anything else :)

[sacha]

http://websitesonadime.com/memememememe.jpg

http://www.antifeministtech.info/wp-con ... cepalm.jpg

There are no words.

Indeed. If she had said "Don't proposition me in the elevator at 4 in the morning" instead of the more categorical and implied "Guys, don't do that to me [and all of my sisters]" then I rather doubt she would have caught as much flack as she has.

QFT

[Southern]

http://websitesonadime.com/memememememe.jpg

Poor Becky. Why does someone has to suffer that much? Here, my dear, this is for you:

[youtube]2Gn9A-kdsRo[/youtube]

[Steersman]

The two things I find most amusing in the "new rules" thread:

1. The product:

Your post will be edited if:
<snip>

...

1) Where are the new rules posted at Pharyngula? (Myers' link to "standard rules page" goes to an 8/2012 post)

The Commenting Rules item in the menu bar. Seems there was nothing there this morning but has now been updated.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/rules/

Looks rather similar to BarnOwl's list - she must be prescient or she spent some time going through the recent comments. Or maybe there's something she isn't telling us [ ;-) ] or ....

[Ä uest]

http://websitesonadime.com/memememememe.jpg

Poor Becky. Why does someone has to suffer that much? Here, my dear, this is for you:

[youtube]2Gn9A-kdsRo[/youtube]

I am obligated to respond with Big Red's cover

[youtube]KWuLVtH6vgM[/youtube]

[Skep tickle]

One person, "Roxie", was banned in the New Rules thread today.

Let's see what egregious behavior Roxie committed, shall we? Consider it a case study.

A few comments to start:
1) All of the posts below are by Roxie except the 3 where I've given another name in the quote box header.

2) All bolding was added by me. The colored font is Myers' usual ban-red. Roxie didn't use blockquote so the quotes are just as she/he included them within her/his posts.

3) These are all of Roxie's posts in the thread, as far as I found. I did not try to include other people's replies to Roxie; there were many. (There are >450 comments in the thread, so it looks like lots of regular commenters there have at least as many posts as Roxie in that thread.) I did not look to see whether Roxie has any other history at Pharyngula.

4) Remember, Myers' blog post had said: "I don’t quite know how to fix everything, so let’s crowdsource it — you people leave comments here telling me what rules you think might work to get the knifey-bitey-smashy atmosphere to lighten up a little." He did NOT specify that input was restricted to regular commenters.

Roxie's posts, plus 3 from others in that thread:

#193

I have a radical idea. How about the regular commentariat just be a little kinder to people instead of telling newbs and people they disagree with to “fuck off”, or “go fuck yourself”.

Stop taking yourselves so seriously and see things from the other person’s point of view, at least initially.

#209

@ 200 piegasm: What is the problem with someone having a different opinion anyway? Despite what you say, someone who has a different view on a subject has that opinion. If many people are having an opinion that is different to yours, then maybe you need to reconsider your own opinion.

@203 andrewryan: I agree, this concept of tone trolling is a toxic one, used by regulars as an excuse to be vicious to other commenters who they don’t agree with. It should be dispensed with imo.

#215

I think another big part of this problem is that many of you seem to be trigger happy in labelling anyone who disagrees a ‘troll’, then having fun in piling on. It’s like a clique of bullies in a school playground, not a message board for discussing and debating. Why are you so upset with someone having a different view of things? This is what I don’t understand.

#233

@ 218 Caine: No, ‘Roxie’, what you want is to be unchallenged whenever you say something obviously wrong or stupid. That sort of thing doesn’t fly here.

Dead wrong, You are welcome to your opinion. And I’m not gonna call you stupid or tell you to go fuck yourself. Why are you the arbiter of what is wrong or stupid anyway?

@ 220 Caine: Just get to the fucking point. This thread is not all about Roxie, so spit out what this “different view of things” is, and we can deal with it and be done.

This is a prime example of what is wrong with the commentariat here. You can’t express yourself in a civil or normal way, have to revert to childish taunting like this.

#241

@ 236 piegasm: There are these things known as facts, roxie. They are the opposite of opinions.

The problem is in who is declaring their opinion a “fact”.

“Stop it”

Why do want to shut me down? Who gives you the right to tell me what to do?

#244

Roxie’s well past the 3 post rule and derailing pretty insistently. Monitors?

#245

Alert sent.

#249

@ 241 Caine: And Don’t Feed the Trolls is bad fucking science…

The concept isn’t a scientific one in the first place, but the problem I see with it is the labelling of commenters who disagree as trolls, rather than as prople who have a different opinion and responding (or not responding even) accordingly.

#252

@ 244 Azkyroth Roxie’s well past the 3 post rule and derailing pretty insistently. Monitors?

What?? I am totally on topic.

#275

@ 270 piegasm However, the cost of erring in the other direction is that actual trolls are given far too much license to do real harm.

What would be an example of “real harm”? If someone is so prone to psychological or other damage from comments on a blog from someone they don’t know then maybe they shouldn’t be posting there. I’m curious.

#280

Gee, I actually agree with you to some degree piegasm, thank so much for informing the reprehensible fucking asshole that I apparently am of that.

#284

Are there any people though who view the comments section of Pharyngula as their “only source of comfort and support”? Surely there are safe space rape survivor forums for people who are in that situation. I thought this was an atheist blog, not a rape survivor blog.

#287

Ok, I’m trying to understand what this tone troll concept is really about. Does it mean if I’m for instance called a “fucking asshole” by a commenter that disagrees with me, then I can reply in kind and that’s ok?

#321

@ Maureen Brian, John Morales et al

I don’t have a problem with “naughty words” or swearing. I’m a grownup and appreciate it as a way to let off steam or add colour to a narrative, but I don’t see the need to use vile insults and profanity as an unnecessary adjunct to debate, just because you don’t happen to agree.

There seems to be a culture of viciousness here, where it’s seen as cool and wonderful here to call unsuspecting commenters assholes, rape apologists etc and to go fuck themselves etc. I would think most newbs commenting here wouldn’t be used to that sort of treatment, so that immediately puts them at a disadvantage.

#333

I notice we had an interesting real-life example here overnight: Roxie. Total troll — a person who has never ever posted here before shows up in a community thread and starts flinging “advice”, which is actually nothing but using the thread as an excuse to criticize while offering no productive suggestions at all. Maybe people can take a look at the responses to Roxie here; were they measured and appropriate? Were they too harsh? Were people too quick to condemn? Were there substantive responses, even in harsh disagreement?

Roxie is also banned. The trolling was way too obvious.

[Guest]

One person, "Roxie", was banned in the New Rules thread today.

Let's see what egregious behavior Roxie committed, shall we? Consider it a case study.

A few comments to start:
1) All of the posts below are by Roxie except the 3 where I've given another name in the quote box header.

2) All bolding was added by me. The colored font is Myers' usual ban-red. Roxie didn't use blockquote so the quotes are just as she/he included them within her/his posts.

3) These are all of Roxie's posts in the thread, as far as I found. I did not try to include other people's replies to Roxie; there were many. (There are >450 comments in the thread, so it looks like lots of regular commenters there have at least as many posts as Roxie in that thread.) I did not look to see whether Roxie has any other history at Pharyngula.

4) Remember, Myers' blog post had said: "I don’t quite know how to fix everything, so let’s crowdsource it — you people leave comments here telling me what rules you think might work to get the knifey-bitey-smashy atmosphere to lighten up a little." He did NOT specify that input was restricted to regular commenters.

Roxie's posts, plus 3 from others in that thread:

#193

I have a radical idea. How about the regular commentariat just be a little kinder to people instead of telling newbs and people they disagree with to “fuck off”, or “go fuck yourself”.

Stop taking yourselves so seriously and see things from the other person’s point of view, at least initially.

Roxie is also banned. The trolling was way too obvious.

[/quote]


Great work. It's amazing. There's certainly no hope for FTB to save itself. The only option is to laugh your ass off while it burns to the ground.

Oh, and here's my own contribution to RW's symphony that I call "Undocumented income flowing into a declared non-profit charity that goes into the pocket of its leader and an officially unrelated party in D Minor."

:violin:

[Slither]

One person, "Roxie", was banned in the New Rules thread today.

Let's see what egregious behavior Roxie committed, shall we?
....
#333

Roxie is also banned. The trolling was way too obvious.

Wow! That is "trolling"?!! And PZ wants to make his blog kinder and more welcoming? Words fail me.