Bleeding from the Bunghole

[John D]

I'm an older guy so I like the classics. Actually... PZ might like the tentacle guy and the rapey domination pose of our hapless victim.

[Scented Nectar]

I must interrupt your regularly scheduled programming debates for the following Public Service Announcement:

http://www.scentednectar.com/slimepit/MNET-00.png

Surely your point is that you find her attractive.

Absolutely! The picture is meant to be read from right to left. :twisted:

[yomomma]

They [various Libertarians] hit all the right notes with the proles -- personal responsibility, freedom, cronyism, hope, fear, closet bigotry, etc. But their actual economic arguments are just tosh and based more on being selfish, and justifying it, than anything else.

Lame!

While I do believe that people who are hard working, smart and productive should be rewarded accordingly, most of all, I believe that the Democratic party and the Republicans to a large degree, set up dependency traps for the poor. While I believe there still needs to be some social programs to help out the most needy of our society, I think many of current programs, no matter how well intended, actually keep the poor locked in a vicious cycle of poverty.

[Scented Nectar]

I must interrupt your regularly scheduled programming debates for the following Public Service Announcement:

http://www.scentednectar.com/slimepit/MNET-00.png

Surely your point is that you find her attractive.

Absolutely! The picture is meant to be read from right to left. :twisted:

To tell the truth this time, I'm just trolling with that pic.

It's ok though. Narcissists like negative attention as much as positive attention. She won't mind at all. :D

[Tony Parsehole]

Ban romance novels. I don't like them.

And while you're at it ban Harry Potter books because warlocks are enemies of god. True story.

[youtube]RSwZJ55g80Q[/youtube]

[free thoughtpolice]

Avatar
Damion Reinhardt Mod whatever
• 6 hours ago

Whatever, dude. It's a big old internet out there. If you can find an example where I made such jokes, I'll happily apologize and retract. Hell, I'll buy you a sandwich.
•
Reply
•
Share ›

Has no one shown him making the remarks about Clarence's man boobs or has he decided to not let that example get posted?

[Tony Parsehole]

Ban romance novels. I don't like them.

Ban everything, just in case.

Ban banning. That'll learn 'em.

[yomomma]

It's not a 'pyramid scheme.' Keynesian economics (primarily) rely on TWO factors to regulate the economy:

1. Manipulation of Interest rates.
2. When interest rate manipulation can no longer function, (zero lower-boundary effect) debt-financed public works to be repaid during times of surplus through taxation. Nothing pyramid about that.

Also, Keynesian economic models work just as well in tiny Iceland as they do in the huge US.

It's a pyramid scheme in the way that it transfers wealth from some individuals to others in a much drastic way than we do currently. I believe it also influences inflation by determining how much money people are allowed to keep.

And in tiny Iceland, austerity measures have also been put in place.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/ ... 2O20120612

It was South America. Not South Africa. And the point is true. Friedman (and the Gang of Eight) got free reign to impliment their economic ideologies and destroyed Chile's economy. Their complete failure is one of the reasons I got away from the economic fairy-tales of my youth.

Oops, my bad. Yes, South America. Maybe that's why I had a hard time finding the articles I was looking for. Honestly, I don't know a lot about this and can't really speak intelligently on it. I don't know how similar it is to the Libertarian theories I admire today. I'd want to read an unbiased critique before I make a comment.

[Suet Cardigan]

I've been investigating the See You Next Tuesday press on Amazon (purely for educational purposes, you understand) and it seems that their audio books are still available. Virginia Wade (presumably not the 1977 Wimbledon winner) writes Bigfoot erotica.

BigfootWade.jpg

(166.39 KiB) Downloaded 156 times

As skeptics, I hope you are above such filth.

[Brive1987]

I must interrupt your regularly scheduled programming debates for the following Public Service Announcement:

http://www.scentednectar.com/slimepit/MNET-00.png

:clap: thanks gives me a smile.

Dark clouds form. I wait for the usual suspects to decry this blight on 'iconised high satire'.

Waits.

Has coffee.

Waits.

Goes to work.

[Tony Parsehole]

Da fuck's happened to ol' Damion? He wasn't that bad when he posted here, we never saw eye to eye all the time but he seemed to have his heart in the right place now he's a full-on SJW.
Maybe he's just click-baiting/drama whoring?

[Tony Parsehole]

I've been investigating the See You Next Tuesday press on Amazon (purely for educational purposes, you understand) and it seems that their audio books are still available. Virginia Wade (presumably not the 1977 Wimbledon winner) writes Bigfoot erotica.

BigfootWade.jpg

As skeptics, I hope you are above such filth.

I don't need to buy the book. I'm already fapping over the blurb.

[debaser71]

Ban romance novels. I don't like them.

Ban everything, just in case.

Good fucking call! Everything includes all the shit I don't like but none of the stuff I do like.

[Lsuoma]

Da fuck's happened to ol' Damion? He wasn't that bad when he posted here, we never saw eye to eye all the time but he seemed to have his heart in the right place now he's a full-on SJW.
Maybe he's just click-baiting/drama whoring?

Could be - Skeptic Ink doesn't seem to be a buzzing hive of activity right now.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Da fuck's happened to ol' Damion? He wasn't that bad when he posted here, we never saw eye to eye all the time but he seemed to have his heart in the right place now he's a full-on SJW.
Maybe he's just click-baiting/drama whoring?

Mostly what I thought as well. An interesting WTF moment, at best. Damion, what happened to you? Can you show it on this here doll?

[Lsuoma]

Hahahahahahahaha!!!!

We have an internal for-sale list where I work - the following was just posted:

=======================================================
Lowering to $10

From: McSellSell, Vendor
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 9:23 AM
To: for-sale@big-company.com
Subject: [FS] $15 - Surly-Ramics Binary Code Pendant Necklace - Pink

Brand new in the package, never worn.

Pic of necklace:

Sells for $18 on the Etsy website but this style is not available: http://www.etsy.com/shop/surly

$15 cash only
=======================================================

[Gumby]

Lsuoma, admit it. You're selling your collection of Surly-Ramics.

[welch]

In TWO YEARS they can't even begin to fix it? WTF happened to all the amazing speed and efficiency of Open Source. (I already know. UI is actually really fucking hard, boring, and you have to think about other people. So don't hold your breath.)

What do you find so broken about the LibreOffice UI? Both the text editor and the spreadsheet components suit me just fine (I don't use the others because if you still do presentations on PPT instead of Reveal.js, you're doing it wrong), better than that Word crap anyway. And MS has the guts to charge for Office these days - the thing doesn't even save a document as a PDF by default.

Because they made all the same mistakes MS did with office, only managed to make it even MORE complicated. The preferences are a great example of what happens when someone who can say "no" isn't around. Fuck, all you have to care about is document fidelity. Why make every other mistake too.

Oh, and on the PDF thing...that was because just before the launch of Office 2007, when they had native PDF creation in the thing, Adobe threatened to sue the shit out of them, blah, blah, anti-trust.

Because if you don't need Acrobat to do basic PDF creation, then the reasons to pay for it, at least Standard, drop like a fucking rock.

So that was MS's gun-shy lawyers capitulating to Adobe, which is understandable given MS's history with such things. But that would be why.

[welch]

As someone who has a degree in, and spent 15 years as a commercial software programmer,

I don't even disagree with welch on that one but I can't help but highlight your argument from authority. Now lets get to comparing who has the biggest one.

Fucking tech geeks. STFU You're boring everyone.

Or what? You'll sue us with your new-found riches?

[katamari Damassi]

Ok you all found me out. I'm a SJW feminist fascist who wants to ban everything my delicate sensibilities find offensive, and I'm also besties with Sarkessian. With such logic skills at your disposal I'm surprised that you haven't won over FfTB yet. I'm also bored now, so you all win, and I will move on to new topics.

[Steersman]

Da fuck's happened to ol' Damion? He wasn't that bad when he posted here, we never saw eye to eye all the time but he seemed to have his heart in the right place now he's a full-on SJW.
Maybe he's just click-baiting/drama whoring?

Mostly what I thought as well. An interesting WTF moment, at best. Damion, what happened to you? Can you show it on this here doll?

:lol:

[welch]

As someone who has a degree in, and spent 15 years as a commercial software programmer,

I don't even disagree with welch on that one but I can't help but highlight your argument from authority. Now lets get to comparing who has the biggest one.

Argument from experience more than argument from authority. I feel there's a difference.

(christ, someone get us pissed at each other this is getting weird.)

I didn't see Git as saying "I AM BLAH BLAH SO YOU MUST SAY I'M RIGHT!". I saw it as someone saying "I have a lot of experience here, and my experience agrees with what he is saying." Given how rarely Git and I agree on anything, I can see why he stated it that way.

[John D]

Ok you all found me out. I'm a SJW feminist fascist who wants to ban everything my delicate sensibilities find offensive, and I'm also besties with Sarkessian. With such logic skills at your disposal I'm surprised that you haven't won over FfTB yet. I'm also bored now, so you all win, and I will move on to new topics.

Shit! and I thought you were going to buy us all a beer with your new found art/marketing money. So sad now!

[Brive1987]

Rebecca Watson has published a guest post by DN Lee, who airs a grievance against a blog editor. The post ends with:

"I appreciate your support, words of encouragement, and offers to ride down on his *$$."

In American history, the term 'riding down' refers to racist whites on horseback trampling a fleeing black.

DN Lee hyperlinked 'riding down' to the following link, featuring a white man gathering-up a twitter-posse
and a woman taking off her earrings to brawl:


Where's Rebecca Watson's famed concern for organized online threats of violence?

DN Lee's grievance is that an editor named Ofek asked "are you an urban scientist or an urban whore?" in response to her refusal to blog for free.

The obvious interpretation is that Ofek's comment was wildly inappropriate.
However, given DN Lee's subsequent use of stereotypical slang, perhaps Ofek was merely responding in Lee's own vernacular?
http://skepchick.org/2013/10/guest-post ... f-my-name/

I'd like to see the exchanges that preceded the "whore" comment.

Ofek was a new hire who has since been fired, and no, I cannot imagine anything that would justify his use of whore in that back and forth, not when he is representing a company and website he works for.

I found a copy of DN Lee's deleted Scientific American post. Unlike the version posted at Skepchick, the original included images of the email exchange. Looks like the "whore" comment was entirely unprovoked:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/urb ... /pic-1.png
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/urb ... /pic-2.png
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/urb ... /pic-3.jpg

I do question the wisdom of DN Lee stooping to Ofek's level by replying to his stereotypical-israeli-prick words with her stereotypical black-cunt-words. She's entitled to do so. But I think reasonable people can disagree about whether that was a smart thing to do.

I don't see any injustice in Ofek being called-out or fired. I disagree with those (such as Chris Clarke, Crip Dyke, and Scalzi) who think the woman who runs Scientific American and the woman who runs Biology Online-- have not responded adequately:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/at- ... -in-chief/
http://www.biology-online.org/biology-f ... 34647.html

I stand by my initial criticism of Rebecca Watson-- wondering how she reconciles her stance on violent online threats with publishing DN Lee's bluster.

As a member of an oppressed minority, RW can never be held to the same standards as the privileged ruling class - regardless of any subjective relative 'privilege' she may own.

It's a variation on the theme that a person of colour can be bigoted but never racist.

But like a fan table at DragonCon, she takes a theme and runs and runs and runs with it.

[Tony Parsehole]

Damion, what happened to you? Can you show it on this here doll?

LOL.
http://awesomegifs.com/wp-content/uploa ... -loool.gif

Good one Phillip.

[Brive1987]

John D has it right. I explained my position on this earlier. Vote with your wallet if you think something is sexist. Let creators of art decide what art to create, and how it should look.

How can people on the Pitt of all places not understand the can of worms that is opened by letting a minority group within a tiny niche special interest group dominate and censor materials to suit their tastes? This is exactly the same shit we are dealing with in the atheist community. There are SJWs in the atheist community, the gaming community and the comic community. How can you be laughing at PZ Myers and Watson and their threat narrative, but go along with the idea that unrealistic portrayals of women in comics is bad (ignoring how unrealistic the men look) and we need censorship to stop this evil oppression of the women?!?

And if you don't want censorship, what do you want? How would you stop comic book creators from drawing what they feel compelled to draw, without actively censoring their works and trying to shame and fire them? You know, just like the atheists who get accused of sexism and rape apology are shamed and fired. And how long before censorship of sexist material becomes censorship of politically-volatile material. I don't think a comic like Transmetropolitan could have been written in a comics industry that allows censorship.

Can you really not see the amazing parallels? There is probably a little legitimate sexism in all three areas (comics, atheism and video games.) But is censorship the right tool to fix it? I didn't think any Pitters would answer yes to this question.

I kind of liked the original cartoon image. There, said it and feel better now. :oops:

[Tony Parsehole]

Fucking tech geeks. STFU You're boring everyone.

Or what? You'll sue us with your new-found riches?

I can't believe I've just read Walter Ego telling people to shut up because they're boring.

[mordacious1]

Total members 800

[Brive1987]

I must interrupt your regularly scheduled programming debates for the following Public Service Announcement:

http://www.scentednectar.com/slimepit/MNET-00.png

Surely your point is that you find her attractive.

Absolutely! The picture is meant to be read from right to left. :twisted:

Doesn't count. You post, you own. :o More Damion fodder when he gets onto drug shaming.

Luckily the truth is always an absolute defence.....

[Southern]

It's not a 'pyramid scheme.' Keynesian economics (primarily) rely on TWO factors to regulate the economy:

1. Manipulation of Interest rates.
2. When interest rate manipulation can no longer function, (zero lower-boundary effect) debt-financed public works to be repaid during times of surplus through taxation. Nothing pyramid about that.

Also, Keynesian economic models work just as well in tiny Iceland as they do in the huge US.

It's a pyramid scheme in the way that it transfers wealth from some individuals to others in a much drastic way than we do currently. I believe it also influences inflation by determining how much money people are allowed to keep.

And in tiny Iceland, austerity measures have also been put in place.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/ ... 2O20120612

It was South America. Not South Africa. And the point is true. Friedman (and the Gang of Eight) got free reign to impliment their economic ideologies and destroyed Chile's economy. Their complete failure is one of the reasons I got away from the economic fairy-tales of my youth.

Oops, my bad. Yes, South America. Maybe that's why I had a hard time finding the articles I was looking for. Honestly, I don't know a lot about this and can't really speak intelligently on it. I don't know how similar it is to the Libertarian theories I admire today. I'd want to read an unbiased critique before I make a comment.

"Destroyed Chile's economy" was the job of Salvador Allende and his Marxist cronies. Chile's economy is actually going relatively well since then - much better than Argentine (years of Peronism put then into the shit), and Brazil is only better because of its humonguos size (and because Fernando Henrique Cardoso - a Fabian socialist that followed the IMF's bible to a T, believe it or not - defeated hyperinflation in 1995).

[Scented Nectar]

I must interrupt your regularly scheduled programming debates for the following Public Service Announcement:

http://www.scentednectar.com/slimepit/MNET-00.png

:clap: thanks gives me a smile.

Dark clouds form. I wait for the usual suspects to decry this blight on 'iconised high satire'.

Waits.

Has coffee.

Waits.

Goes to work.

Mmmmm, coffee!

Everyone here already knows my sense of humour is of the low and crude sort. And I know that that's not everyone's cup of tea. That's life though, eh? :)

[Guest]

It's not a 'pyramid scheme.' Keynesian economics (primarily) rely on TWO factors to regulate the economy:

1. Manipulation of Interest rates.
2. When interest rate manipulation can no longer function, (zero lower-boundary effect) debt-financed public works to be repaid during times of surplus through taxation. Nothing pyramid about that.

Also, Keynesian economic models work just as well in tiny Iceland as they do in the huge US.

It's a pyramid scheme in the way that it transfers wealth from some individuals to others in a much drastic way than we do currently. I believe it also influences inflation by determining how much money people are allowed to keep.

And in tiny Iceland, austerity measures have also been put in place.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/ ... 2O20120612

It was South America. Not South Africa. And the point is true. Friedman (and the Gang of Eight) got free reign to impliment their economic ideologies and destroyed Chile's economy. Their complete failure is one of the reasons I got away from the economic fairy-tales of my youth.

Oops, my bad. Yes, South America. Maybe that's why I had a hard time finding the articles I was looking for. Honestly, I don't know a lot about this and can't really speak intelligently on it. I don't know how similar it is to the Libertarian theories I admire today. I'd want to read an unbiased critique before I make a comment.

I am pretty libertarian in many ways, but if you haven't taken a modern course in macro-economics, I would suggest you do so.

This book is described as an excellent introduction to economics. I don't know if it is, I haven't read it.

I do know if you want to learn Shakespeare, you need to learn it in the original Klingon. And so I suggest if you want to learn about Keynesian economics, make sure your professor has the intellectual rigor and honesty not to lead you astray. Or listen to the Klingon and start reading Paul Krugman.



Q: Does Keynesian Economics transfer wealth?
A: Is there any government action that does not transfer wealth? Does that mean we should oppose all government action?

Q: Is Keynesian Economics a Pyramid Scheme:
A: Pyramids schemes are bad because they are not sustainable. A pyramid scheme takes money from new investors and gives it to old investors. Eventually there is no one to pump money into the scheme. That is not in any way a description of Keynesian economics. Keynesian economics is more like asking everyone to pay for the addition of a lane onto a crowded and packed highway. Adding that lane increases everyone's velocity. And it's sustainable. We don't need to keep pouring money in once the lane has been built.

People may not like the additional taxes for the additional freeway lane.

But the question is, 10 years down the road, is the average person in town prospering better because of that freeway lane, or worse? Keynesian economics says not only is the average person doing better, but as a whole, the town is much better than it ever could have been without that freeway lane.

In a sense Keynesian Economics increases the size of an economy by recognizing there are places that money can be injected to help the economy flow faster.

This probably makes no sense because my explanatory powers of econ are poor.

But don't read about Keynesian Economics solely from critics, or that is, solely from intellectually dishonest critics. Read about it from people who either favor it, or who can honestly describe how it works, with mathematics, before they begin to criticize it and take it down.

If all you know of Keynes is what you read in the popular business press, or in sites that favor libertarian politics, or conservative politics, you probably aren't getting the complete picture you deserve.

Even Milton Friedman, even Richard Nixon said, "We are all Keynesians now" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_are_all_Keynesians_now

[Guest]

I am always impressed with the backgrounds of other people and often find that what I thought was my own good background was actually a poor education in comparison.

I don't mean to imply that I have a good or better understanding of econ than others. I most likely do not.

[Service Dog]

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

[bhoytony]

I can't say I'm convinced with this argument that women are not depicted realistically in comic books. As far as I can see the characters Sandra and Tracey (also known as San and Tray) look exactly like a lot of women who I had interesting conversations with at 2:00 AM when I was in my twenties.

[Brive1987]

I must interrupt your regularly scheduled programming debates for the following Public Service Announcement:

http://www.scentednectar.com/slimepit/MNET-00.png

:clap: thanks gives me a smile.

Dark clouds form. I wait for the usual suspects to decry this blight on 'iconised high satire'.

Waits.

Has coffee.

Waits.

Goes to work.

Mmmmm, coffee!

Everyone here already knows my sense of humour is of the low and crude sort. And I know that that's not everyone's cup of tea. That's life though, eh? :)

Indeed.

[Scented Nectar]

Absolutely! The picture is meant to be read from right to left. :twisted:

Doesn't count. You post, you own. :o More Damion fodder when he gets onto drug shaming.

Luckily the truth is always an absolute defence.....

Truth. Well, it's true that I enjoy making fun of her. I rest my case. :D

[Lsuoma]

I can't say I'm convinced with this argument that women are not depicted realistically in comic books. As far as I can see the characters Sandra and Tracey (also known as San and Tray) look exactly like a lot of women who I had interesting conversations with at 2:00 AM when I was in my twenties.

That's what they looked like in the daylight. Howe did they actually appear to you with your BGs on?

[Cunning Punt]

"Destroyed Chile's economy" was the job of Salvador Allende and his Marxist cronies. Chile's economy is actually going relatively well since then - much better than Argentine (years of Peronism put then into the shit), and Brazil is only better because of its humonguos size (and because Fernando Henrique Cardoso - a Fabian socialist that followed the IMF's bible to a T, believe it or not - defeated hyperinflation in 1995).

Oh come on. Allende was in power for less than 3 years, 40 years ago. That's quite a job he must have done.

Others here have pointed out that it was the policies of the Chicago crooks that dropped Chile in the shit for a long time, and there is a direct link from policies to consequences. No doubt some of Allende's policies set the country up for some tough medicine, but Friedman and his cronies used Chile as a human lab for their ideas. It's telling that only a military dictatorship could be able to implement them to the extent the Chicago school advisors wanted.

Oh, and for those saying that libertarianism hasn't been tried - how do you think western economies ran during and after the Industrial Revolution? Laissez-faire capitalism was the dominant ideal up until the late 19th century, when working people started getting the right to vote and form trade unions.

[Scented Nectar]

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

That face! I've seen it somewhere. Is that jesus?

[DownThunder]

Here's some titles by Amy Huston. Who knew elevator fantasies were so widespread?

There's no panic button in a broken elevator

Raped and fucked by my daddy in an elevator

Or if youre into something a little more "regrettable", heres something by Shannon Leigh.

Animal rape and lactation sex with my two dogs.

Cant help but notice these authors are all female....

[welch]

I think you need to pick better examples. LibreOffice was forked from OpenOffice in 2010. Most of its "shitty UI" was written by StarDivision/Oracle.

In TWO YEARS they can't even begin to fix it? WTF happened to all the amazing speed and efficiency of Open Source. (I already know. UI is actually really fucking hard, boring, and you have to think about other people. So don't hold your breath.)

Now you are just ridiculing people for no reason. "amazing speed and efficiency of Open Source", who claimed that?

Um, it's one of the primary reasons FOR open source. That when nothing is hidden, everyone can contribute, and you can get amazing results. In fact, it's essentially codified as "Linus's Law":

The law states that "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"; or more formally: "Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix will be obvious to someone."

That *can* happen, but it is constantly overstated by the FOSS fans. Instead, what you find are the things people want to work on get a lot of attention, and the stuff that no one wants is ignored. UI design is not something you can just bang out. You have to bring together a lot of different disciplines and be willing to give someone the ability to say "no". When you don't have that, you get...well, X11 was a great example.

But that whole "It's faster/better" is one of the big reasons behind Open Source as being "superior".

The section in question discusses a personal choice for his career somewhere around the KT boundary. It does not back your claim that RMS argues that free software confers moral superiority (to whom anyway?).

As I thought. Let's make this easy. You tell me the words Stallman must use for my statement to be correct. He's ranted about the moral superiority of Free software for years, if not decades, but i've no interest in reading your mind. You put the words here. Then i"ll see if he actually said those precise words. It will make things easier on everyone.

Your original claim was: "It confers neither moral superiority nor inferiority no matter how many times RMS stamps his feet otherwise"

As far as I can tell he says that free software is better from a moral, ethical economical etc. perspective. I don't see where he claims this confers superiority on individuals.

You seem to have some sort of caricature in your mind where RMS is this one-issue clown that rants about free software all day and measures everyone based on whether they follow the cult of free software or not. I linked to his comments on Apple which show that contrary to what you claimed he doesn't trash companies for not writing free software. The reality is that he trashes Apple for specific restrictions it imposes on users. All of what I've seen on his site is specific criticism of consequences not the stupid broad generalizations that you ascribe to him. Maybe you need to search through Q&A sessions or similar where people say this kind of stuff in the heat of the moment.

Well, RMS is a one-issue clown. he has been for years. RMS Good, !RMS bad.

But here...If I tell you that doing A is good, and doing B is bad, over and over. If I continually frame A as good and B as bad. for decades. No grey area, this is black and white. Now, you see people doing B. B is a bad thing. What kind of people do bad things?

What does this quote from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html tell you about people who don't say "no" to proprietary software?

As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a proprietary program. If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to refuse. Cooperation is more important than copyright. But underground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society. A person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and this means saying no to proprietary software.

For once, don't just parrot words. Think a moment. If I say a thing is bad, morally bad, what does that say about the people who do that thing?

I am not an FSF person. I linked to the FSF because you were confusing their definition of "free software" and your own and were asserting that their license is in conflict with their own ideals. If you insist that you actually knew that and were deliberately spinning this to make them look like hypocrites then please don't do that again in the future.

Their license is not free. It is not even close to free. It is highly restrictive and lays down specific terms that tell you what you cannot do with GPL'd software.

That's not free, that's "Free". The GPL is not about freedom in any sense other than what the people behind the GPL decide "freedom" is. If they don't like something, then they modify the GPL to ban the use of GPL'd software in that instance.

It's not significantly different then the way the Soviet Leaders meant "freedom": "you're free to act in the way we require and do the things we allow".

That's why i point out the BSD license as a truly "free" license. The GPL simply is not, and therefore, their claims to supporting software freedom are crapola.

You disagree with the FSF's definition of "free", fine. I acknowledged this the first time.

Obviously the BSD license is not truly "free" under your definition since it imposes requirements on the user.
A "free" license under your definition is http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/

I am not sure I understand your issue with different versions of the GPL. You are free to use whichever you like. The BSD licenses comes in different versions too.

Oh for...have you actually looked at the differences between GPLv2 and GPLv3? I only ask because the differences are not small, and if you seriously cannot understand why someone would see the significant increase in limitations in V3 as a problem, even if you don't agree, then I start wondering if you have actually read even the diffs on the two versions.

Also, exactly what restrictions does the BSD license place on your use of its source code? Any of the current versions will work, be it "New", "Simplified" or the NetBSD license?

And because I sadly have to: by restrictions, I mean, what can you NOT do with the source code according to the BSD license.

Ah, the GPLv2. Which is not the current version is it? No. No it is not. As well, nice way to misrepresent what Hubbard was trying to say.

Please go back to what he wrote. He wrote about the GPL scaring users away. GPLv3 is not widely in use so it is clearly not what he meant. My point was that even though his theoretical argument has merit the practice shows it to be irrelevant.

Define "not widely in use", because depending on who you ask, it's between 6.5% (Black Duck Software) and 50% (Google Code projects). Also, I fail to see what popularity has to do with it. The fact is the GPLv3 does exist and some fairly large projects, like SAMBA are now using it, it is most definitely "widely" in use.

But so what? If something isn't popular, then it can't be bad? You gripe about Git supposedly arguing from authority, then you use popularity? Really?

Oh and points for "i've not seen it so it's not there."

I didn't realize the point about Linux vs *BSD adoption among SoC vendors was going to be controversial. Otherwise I would have dropped it cause I am too lazy to go through dozens of webpages just to provide tons of links that state the obvious. Even if someone somewhere offers a *BSD port that doesn't negate the point that Linux is widely adopted despite the GPL.

Linux is widely adopted in spite of the GPL because Linus is a pragmatist and an asshole who views getting things done as having value. Otherwise we'd still be waiting on HURD. Which we are.

I don't even disagree with welch on that one but I can't help but highlight your argument from authority. Now lets get to comparing who has the biggest one.

So he's not allow to point out the thing that gives him some vague form of expertise in the field?

The rest of his quote was: "I find myself violently agreeing with everything Welch has said on this subject. He is speaking sense, at least on this one."

If he agrees with everything you said then he agrees with a the whole collection of your cartoon character depictions of RMS that you produced here and have not backed up with actual quotes. His expertise does nothing to close that evidence gap.

You still have yet to say what you'd accept as a permissible quote from RMS. I wish you would because it would make this much easier. I know you won't for that very reason.

And really, if all I wanted to do was turn RMS into a cartoon character, I'd just use this:

[youtube]I25UeVXrEHQ[/youtube]

Stallman turns himself into a caricature far better than I ever could.

[Linus]

If by "correcting me" you mean "justified why whatever i say is whatever I meant, even though it's different than what I said earlier, so I win because neener-neener" then you most certainly did.

Okay, quote it then.

Yeah, you're one of them. Doesn't count unless it was perfectly quoted, and if a comma's out of place, doesn't count. Aka the Dave Chappelle R. Kelly standard of proof. Funny, given how you take other people to task about being hyperskeptical, you sure as hell do it when it suits you.

I'm willing to bet you don't actually see where Marc Antony is reaming Brutus in his famous speech, since he never actually says anything specifically bad about Brutus.

What the fuck. Are you sniffing glue right now? That is not a rhetorical question. I seriously want to know.

You're insisting I said something that I didn't say, even after I've repeatedly clarified that it's something I didn't say. What possible rebuttal (since you won't accept "no that is not what I was saying" for an answer) can I give other than challenging you to quote me? Who said anything about "perfectly quoted" or "if a comma's out of place it doesn't count". I just challenged you to quote me AT ALL.

[welch]

BTW, I started a special thread for people who want to talk IT stuff.

Sorry about that, didn't see this post until I'd replied a few times.

[bhoytony]

I can't say I'm convinced with this argument that women are not depicted realistically in comic books. As far as I can see the characters Sandra and Tracey (also known as San and Tray) look exactly like a lot of women who I had interesting conversations with at 2:00 AM when I was in my twenties.

That's what they looked like in the daylight. Howe did they actually appear to you with your BGs on?

No, that's that's what they looked like at the time. They were much worse in the morning, when you woke up and found yourself in a strange room with one laid asleep on your arm. It was either wake them up or try to sneak out by chewing your arm off like a fox in a trap.

[Linus]

I was the guest that directed that at you and I was saying the shit you are spouting is the stock feminist line regardless of what you think you are saying.

Good. My interpretation was correct.

See welch, I was saying s/he pulled that shit out of his ass because s/he was saying that is what I was saying. You interpreted it as if I was defending people such as Greg Laden.

(not even going to respond to the "you aren't saying what you think you're saying, you're saying what I've decided you're saying" drivel)

Oh bless your heart honey.

Would it kill you to concede a point?

[welch]

I have to side with the pissed off geek girls on this one. Female characters in superhero comics have been consistently rendered terribly for a very long time, mostly because I think the artists are sexually frustrated guy geeks. I'm pretty sure I've told this story before, but many years ago my 5 or 6 year old nephew received a free X-men comic from Pizza Hut(I think) and he asked me to read it to him. I was appalled at the way the women characters were depicted. They were posed and drawn like pouty faced centerfold models even in the least appropriate situations, and of course the costumes are pretty much body paint.

The problem is that there is a pile of fake comic nerd-girlz trying to impose some kind of social standard on a tradition. If you are "appalled" by the way women are depicted in comics then you are not a geek girl. The women doing all the complaining about sexualization are fucking nerd-hippster posers. I don't really care if someone is appalled or not. But... if you are appalled then stay the fuck away from our playground and shut up.

One of the "fake nerd girls" complaining has been writing in the field for over 30 years. Including scripts for multiple cartoons, such as Gargoyles, a TNG script, book versions of Spider-Man and the X-Men, Star Trek Books, (both TOS and TNG), etc.

Another one is a comic colorist for DC.

No, it's not all "Fake Nerd Girls".

[Service Dog]

I can't say I'm convinced with this argument that women are not depicted realistically in comic books. As far as I can see the characters Sandra and Tracey (also known as San and Tray) look exactly like a lot of women who I had interesting conversations with at 2:00 AM when I was in my twenties.

Passes the The Bechdel Test, too!

http://davedevine.files.wordpress.com/2 ... -slags.jpg

[Tribble]

They [various Libertarians] hit all the right notes with the proles -- personal responsibility, freedom, cronyism, hope, fear, closet bigotry, etc. But their actual economic arguments are just tosh and based more on being selfish, and justifying it, than anything else.

Lame!

While I do believe that people who are hard working, smart and productive should be rewarded accordingly, most of all, I believe that the Democratic party and the Republicans to a large degree, set up dependency traps for the poor. While I believe there still needs to be some social programs to help out the most needy of our society, I think many of current programs, no matter how well intended, actually keep the poor locked in a vicious cycle of poverty.

Lol. You may not like it, but I've been listening to it since the 1970s. And your rationalizations are the same ones I've heard since the 1970s.

What keeps poor people in the poor people cycle is our social structure. We have, in America, the least mobile society in the West. And it's because of our Libertarian/Morality Police policies that are made as minimal as possible by Conservatives and their Libertarian cousins.

And, as I said in post much later than the one you quoted, and possibly in the one you quoted, at one time I held your beliefs. I just got educated out of them because, while in college (and dual majoring in Economics and Accounting), I saw my monetist/Austrian beliefs were nothing more than fail-sauce and an excuse to be smug.

But thanks for playing.

[Brive1987]

Absolutely! The picture is meant to be read from right to left. :twisted:

Doesn't count. You post, you own. :o More Damion fodder when he gets onto drug shaming.

Luckily the truth is always an absolute defence.....

Truth. Well, it's true that I enjoy making fun of her. I rest my case. :D

Too late, I had already conceded. Now to continue this over a coffee, sugar or straight black? ;)

[AndrewV69]

One daughter finds yaoi offensive and is prudish about it. The other has a small collection of yaoi (only because she's young and jobless) and quite enjoys it.

I had to look up Yaoi. *shrug* Just one more thing I do not "get". It does sound pretty harmless to me though.

[spiffigt]

Here's some titles by Amy Huston. Who knew elevator fantasies were so widespread?

There's no panic button in a broken elevator

Raped and fucked by my daddy in an elevator

Or if youre into something a little more "regrettable", heres something by Shannon Leigh.

Animal rape and lactation sex with my two dogs.

Cant help but notice these authors are all female....

If you've read any amount of fanfiction it's the same there. Almost all (at least over 80%) of ff authors are female. Straight, slash, $RANDOM_FETISH - it doesn't matter. I don't know why I made that connection, but hey.

[welch]

I have to side with the pissed off geek girls on this one. Female characters in superhero comics have been consistently rendered terribly for a very long time, mostly because I think the artists are sexually frustrated guy geeks. I'm pretty sure I've told this story before, but many years ago my 5 or 6 year old nephew received a free X-men comic from Pizza Hut(I think) and he asked me to read it to him. I was appalled at the way the women characters were depicted. They were posed and drawn like pouty faced centerfold models even in the least appropriate situations, and of course the costumes are pretty much body paint.

The problem is that there is a pile of fake comic nerd-girlz trying to impose some kind of social standard on a tradition. If you are "appalled" by the way women are depicted in comics then you are not a geek girl. The women doing all the complaining about sexualization are fucking nerd-hippster posers. I don't really care if someone is appalled or not. But... if you are appalled then stay the fuck away from our playground and shut up.

I don't really buy that. While at the moment there is a sort of geek chic that some people are posing with, I think it's a stand out minority, more and more women are getting into geek culture-comics and gaming-partly because I think women who have been into it for a long time-and I knew genuine geek girls back in the 80's when you were embarrassed to be seen as a geek-are coming out of the closet. I think the way women superheroes are rendered diminishes their enjoyment. And even if giant tits and rubber spines are a tradition, it doesn't mean that it's a good one that deserves to continue.
While were on the subject of "fake geek girls"; I'd like to ask the question, so what? When I hear guys complain about that, it smacks of SJW's cries of "cultural appropriation" which I've always found to be bullshit. Nobody owns a culture, it changes and diffuses and we're all the better for it. And you would think geeky straight guys wouldn't complain about chicks wanting to join their club.

When you have people like Diane Duane, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Duane complaining, you begin to see how ludicrous the "it's just fake nerd girls" concept can be. People have actually called her a fake. Her husband, Peter Morwood is not thrilled with how women are even casually drawn in comics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Morwood I suppose he's a fake nerd girl too.

You don't have to look far to see how ridiculous it can get. What DC did to Starfire was honestly appalling, and I speak as someone who'd liked that character since she first appeared.

[welch]

Yes men are hyper-idealized as well but it's an order of magnitude of difference.

I don't actually buy that it's an order of magnitude difference. I honestly see just as much idealization in male figures as I do in women figures in every genre of media. There are as many broad-chested, perfect-haired adonises as there are super-models. The media's standard for male physique is every bit as unrealistic as it is for women.

And who is telling anyone "what to like" There are people saying what they don't like and what they would like. The problem for just buying/viewing what they do like is that there isn't a lot else out there if you like superheroes, there's Marvel and DC and some small time independents. For fuck sake it's like if you ask an artist to change Cat Women's cup size from EE's down to a C you guys act like someone is taking a sharpie to the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

So what you're saying is you lack the talent to create the characters you want and instead of going through the work to build that talent or financially support someone who is willing to build that talent, you'd rather it just change to suit your preferences. Got it.

No that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if these creators would listen to a portion of their client base they could really expand it. Their current demographic of 15 year-old boys and 40 year-old men who stopped developing emotionally at 15 is not going to stop buying comics because Power Girl has big tits instead of ginormous tits, but with minor changes they could bring in legions of new fans. Instead they've created this "fake geek girl" boogeyman and circled the wagons against them. Besides making them look kind of dumb, it also makes them look like huge pussies.

I find it hilarious that the first reaction to this criticism, even when it comes from *people in the field* is "FAKE! FAKE! FAKE!".

Someone please show me where you can get certified as an "official" nerd.

I'm sure my wife would be considered a fake, even though she's done work for both the GoT and Call of Cthulu card games. I'm also willing to bet the vast, vast majority of people using the fake label have never done a bit of direct work in the fields themselves.

[welch]

Well, shit. When you put it like that-- I can't think of any reason the guys you consider emotionally retarded dumb pussies wouldn't want "legions of new fans" like you around.

It's not for me, I'm not buying comics regardless. I simply agree with their critics on this one.

"It's not for me, I'm not buying comics regardless."

Classic.

I walked away years ago, and the rise of artists like Liefeld were a primary reason for it.

[bhoytony]

I can't say I'm convinced with this argument that women are not depicted realistically in comic books. As far as I can see the characters Sandra and Tracey (also known as San and Tray) look exactly like a lot of women who I had interesting conversations with at 2:00 AM when I was in my twenties.

Passes the The Bechdel Test, too!

http://davedevine.files.wordpress.com/2 ... -slags.jpg

I'm thinking of shooping San and Tray as Mel and Steph just to give our lurking dimbulb some more ammunition for his drama blogging.

[welch]

Yes men are hyper-idealized as well but it's an order of magnitude of difference.

Is it?

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1185180/xf2.jpg

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1185456/yb24.jpg

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1185172/warchild2.jpg

No, it really isn't. But MUST you link to that much Liefeld? Christ, I have to go look at elephant paintings to wash that shit out of my brain now.

[welch]

Okay, quote it then.

Yeah, you're one of them. Doesn't count unless it was perfectly quoted, and if a comma's out of place, doesn't count. Aka the Dave Chappelle R. Kelly standard of proof. Funny, given how you take other people to task about being hyperskeptical, you sure as hell do it when it suits you.

I'm willing to bet you don't actually see where Marc Antony is reaming Brutus in his famous speech, since he never actually says anything specifically bad about Brutus.

What the fuck. Are you sniffing glue right now? That is not a rhetorical question. I seriously want to know.

You're insisting I said something that I didn't say, even after I've repeatedly clarified that it's something I didn't say. What possible rebuttal (since you won't accept "no that is not what I was saying" for an answer) can I give other than challenging you to quote me? Who said anything about "perfectly quoted" or "if a comma's out of place it doesn't count". I just challenged you to quote me AT ALL.

What I'm asking is actually quite simple: is there a place for implication in your world, or are the literal meaning of the words sans context or anything else the only valid interpretation. because it seems pretty clear that the latter is all that matters to you. If there aren't specific words that say specific things, then it doesn't count.

That's why I bring up Antony's speech about Brutus. Really, at no time does he call Brutus a low-down murdering slimeball. Not directly. In fact, you really cannot quote any part of that speech where he says anything "bad" about brutus at all. But the implications are clear.

If you only count things in the most literal way possible, then just say so, and i'll stop even trying to communicate with you, because if that's the case, we're effectively speaking two different languages, and I have better things to do than try to talk to someone who wants everything to function like a programming language.

[Karmakin]

Yeah I don't read Western comics because of the turn the medium took on the 90's.


Read a lot of manga however and not the kind that PZ likes. For example I'd highly recommend Full Metal Alchemist. Great story and pacing and done by a woman as well.

There are Western comics popular with women...for example The Walking Dead...the 90's art style is repulsive however the solution is not censorship or even change it is highlighting positive alternatives.

[welch]

Good. My interpretation was correct.

See welch, I was saying s/he pulled that shit out of his ass because s/he was saying that is what I was saying. You interpreted it as if I was defending people such as Greg Laden.

(not even going to respond to the "you aren't saying what you think you're saying, you're saying what I've decided you're saying" drivel)

Oh bless your heart honey.

Would it kill you to concede a point?

WOuld it kill you to make one?