Bleeding from the Bunghole

[Dick Strawkins]

I note the recent tendency to see RW as boringly "old 'pit". :bjarte:

So feel free to ignore this recent update.

A Long Thank You and Update -- Hello Patron Friends!

Apologies for being a bit quiet the past week. I'll be honest with you: I've been a bit down, which makes it tough to get on camera because I think it shows. I blame the snow piling up outside (I had to stop my daily runs), the impending holiday (I normally love Xmas but this year we're saving all our pennies, so there's no tree or presents), and a recent influx of really truly vicious trolls (Reddit's Men's Rights forum has once again remembered I exist). Also I saw a dog for adoption on Petfinder named Lord Dorkley and I am in love with him but we can't afford a new family member at the moment... blah-de-blah-blah...

Yes, the trolls. The terrible awful trolls, without whom Rebecca would be nobody going nowhere.

What she doesn't mention is why they're trolling. Her Mormon Date video was posted to over a dozen subreddits, half of them MRA forums. Some of them framed the video as acting out a secret rape fantasy, but some had a take she'd never want to hear: Rebecca Watson is a bigot and humiliator. That's different than the usual cunt-skank-ho-lulz shit she's always too happy to share. If that makes her uncomfortable, too fecking bad, she earned it.

I don't think you cannot separate her Mormon sex story from her other talk at Skepticon, where she extolled the value of being funny. The most likely explanation is that there is a grain of truth somewhere in the Mormon story but it was really just a chance for her to put her "being funny" hypothesis into action.
If you approach the tale, not as a real account of a true incident, but as a badly told joke with an atrocious punchline, then it makes much more sense.
I don't tend to believe that she really would have dismissed the guy in that way. The whole "get the fuck out of here" line reeks of artificiality - it's like something designed specifically to get a "you go, girl!" reaction from her feminist fans.
In reality it sounds like a very bad piece of advice as to how to defuse a situation where someone decides they don't want to continue having sex. Utterly humiliating the other person might generate a cheap laugh on the retelling but how much can she know about the guy on the first date - especially how might he react to being humiliated like that.

[Tony Parsehole]

I note the recent tendency to see RW as boringly "old 'pit". :bjarte:

So feel free to ignore this recent update.

A Long Thank You and Update -- Hello Patron Friends!

Apologies for being a bit quiet the past week. I'll be honest with you: I've been a bit down, which makes it tough to get on camera because I think it shows. I blame the snow piling up outside (I had to stop my daily runs), the impending holiday (I normally love Xmas but this year we're saving all our pennies, so there's no tree or presents), and a recent influx of really truly vicious trolls (Reddit's Men's Rights forum has once again remembered I exist). Also I saw a dog for adoption on Petfinder named Lord Dorkley and I am in love with him but we can't afford a new family member at the moment.

All that whining aside, I'm recovering at a healthy pace and am going to try to record something fun tonight. The support all of you have given me has been a huge, huge help – not just monetarily, but psychologically, and I want you to know that. Sincerely: thanks.

On that note, the first Google+ hangout was fun, and I'll be scheduling a new one each month for whoever wants to join. I have a number of friends who have gamely offered to join in, as Maki did this time, so you can look forward to that.

All of which brings me to this: I am not ignoring the fact that we passed the $400/video mark, meaning that I am now to sing a little song. When I made that goal, I was joking because I didn't really think we'd hit it and I couldn't think of any better thing to write, but god damn it I made a promise and I intend to keep it. I'm hoping to solicit some help from one of my songwriting friends, of which I inexplicably have gathered quite a few. So, know that I am 100% going to do this, but it may take some time because I want it to be done right, and I have no idea what I'm doing.

That's it for now! Happy Merry Whatever.

Best,
Rebecca

Hahahaha!! Dance Rebecca! Dance for your Patreon masters!
http://i.imgflip.com/5k5he.gif

[Steersman]

<snip>

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that a credible case can be made that self organizing systems are involved in the biochemistry of life - but these are minor aspects of evolution compared to proven factors such as genetic drift, variation and natural selection?

Maybe. But what evidence do you have that those are only “minor aspects”? Considering the very significant amount of physics that more or less proves the pervasiveness and importance of emergence and self-organization in various physical systems, including biological ones, I would say “minor” is rather an untenable position to be taking.

And, as a rather simple case in point, you might want to check out the operation of even simple Boolean networks, and that Mathematica demonstration of them, which clearly show that homeostatic behaviour tends naturally to fall out of the application of very simple rules – almost, one might suggest, as if systems were finely tuned to exhibit such behaviours.

It is very difficult to understand your point but I will at least try.

IF you are saying that self organizing systems are important in biology then that, of course, is a well established fact. You seem to be concentrating on self catalytic peptides and nucleic acids which have been demonstrated experimentally. Unfortunately for you these experimental systems are not a good example of a self organizing process - they generally involve scientists artificially examining a narrow range of possibilities in order to produce a self catalytic molecule. I don't know of any experiment that produced a self organizing and self catalyzing biomolecular polymer.

I provided a much more established example of a self organizing system - the lipid bilayer of cell membranes. This is not self catalytic but it is self organizing. There is little doubt that this property of lipid biomolecules has had a significant role in allowing life to develop as we know it. ...

But this has very little to do with the ongoing process of biological evolution. You are making a huge error by mixing up self organizing systems and "emergence". I think you made the same mistake in the past here on the slymepit due to you not understanding the meaning of the term emergence.

Emergence generally refers to the process whereby an unpredictable new process arises out of earlier simpler processes. An example would be things like consciousness arising out of the development of a larger brain that evolves to cope with the problems living in a mobile social group of bipedal primates. ...

Life itself can be certainly viewed as an emergent process that developed from simpler biochemical processes (for example from earlier biochemical processes such as crystal or clay formation that paved the way for more complicated biochemisty.) But once it had developed to a significant degree - for example the simplest bacterial precursors - then standard evolution by natural selection and random drift will have taken over.

The question you need to answer is where exactly do self organizing systems fit in with the evolution that occurs after this point - in other words for the last three and a half billion years of evolution?

There are no new self catalytic and self organizing biomolecules turning up after this point in evolution. The self organizing aspect of nucleic acids is simply their ability to form hydrogen bonds between bases ...

Thanks for taking a stab at understanding my comment and responding, and I’ll concede that I’ve apparently made at least somewhat of a mistake in conflating emergence and self-organization. And that “self-organization” may be the more appropriate term in these circumstances. In any case, that seems a relatively common mistake, and even a topic of some import:

Sometimes the notion of self-organization is conflated with that of the related concept of emergence, because "[t]he order from chaos, presented by Self-Organizing models, is often interpreted in terms of emergence". Properly defined, however, there may be instances of self-organization without emergence and emergence without self-organization, and it is clear from the literature that the phenomena are not the same. The link between emergence and self-organization remains an active research question.

However, it seems that “evolution” itself spans three and a half to four billion years, and encompasses a great number of processes. But while Kauffman’s focus seems to be, in part, on abiogenesis, on how life got started in the first place, and he may therefore be somewhat more concerned with processes of self-organization in that limited sphere, I also get the impression, based on his fairly extensive discussion of his Boolean network models, that he believes, apparently with some justification, that the “attractors”, the “limit cycles” of those networks, are basically the clocks that drive various biological processes. And that were and are integral parts of that entire evolutionary process and period.

Further, due to the nature of those attractors, they exhibit substantial degrees of homeostasis in themselves, that mutations in some elements or “genes” tend only to “perturb” the system briefly which then returns to its basic cycle. It is only rarely that there is a sufficiently severe mutation that is capable of “kicking” the system into cycling through a different set of elements. However, it seems that the implication there is that, as the system is tightly coupled – or loosely coupled between a large number of elements which may be the same thing, mutations tend not to be random affairs, but are changes that produce a cascade of other changes that are integrated, stable, and coherent – maybe somewhat similar to Gould’s “punctuated equilibria”.

Now that is of course based on reading between the lines, and on my own very limited understanding of some truly intricate processes – awe-inspiring ones, actually. However, if it is even marginally accurate – and Kauffman and many others sure seem to think it more than that – then it still suggests that self-organization – the coupled nature of all of those genes and their products – tends to make the argument or claim of “random variation” largely an untenable fiction. And it is there – presumably down in the bedrock – that “self-organization proposes” not “tinkered together contraptions and Rube Goldberg machines”, but integrated if not irreducibly complex assemblies. Which selection eventually gets around to disposing of or “deciding” is worth retaining for future generations.

[Ape+lust]

Ape you totally cock blocked my threefer.

Oops, SORRY! Mansplaining makes me interject at the worst moments :D

[Dave2]

And why do people think that with fine tuning all you have to do is point out that the universe can't host life everywhere? The argument, when presented properly, is a meta one looking at basic foundation stuff like atomic bonds etc. Not Goldilocks zones.

Right, but the point Heddle seems to be repeatedly avoiding is that even in the case of basic foundation stuff its still something of a Goldilocks argument because there's an apparent presumption that nothing interesting is happening at other tunings.

Whereas it is not known that energy isn't manifesting and behaving in ways that are equivalent to, or more complex than, the manner in which it manifests under the circumstances we can experience.

So his argument seems to be "there can't be an equivalent to life at other tunings because even the slightest mucking about stops atomic bonds".

But that relies on an assumption that there isn't an equivalent to bonds/atoms/quarks ... and so on and so on ...

So I still fail to see how it goes beyond Goldilocks in spirit unless he has some way of demonstrating that energy just does NOTHING at other tunings.

[Pogsurf]

1) What is problematic is that we do not understand how the constants happen to be in what appears to be a narrow range that permits life. At first blush it appears to be "luck" and as scientists we absolutely abhor"luck" as an explanation.
2) I'm not sure I ever met a physicist who, after thinking about it, doesn't agree it is a problem. Those who are cosmologists, astro, or particle physicists pretty much already know it is a problem A, say, solid state physicist--who might not spend time thinking about cosmology might not immediately agree--but in all cases I have experienced will agree after a discussion. So I literally do not personally know any physicist who says that it is not a problem.
3) You are mistaking condescension with insults. If anyone asks me a question in good faith, no matter how dumb, I will try to give a polite answer. That's the teacher in me. But if someone acts like a jackass then I can dish it back out. I have a lot of experience. I'm treated on here no different than I was treated on Pharyngula and I managed to survive there. Did I miss your similar moral outrage at the names I was called?

And I disagree that it is manifestly true that "So if you aren't being understood, the fault lies in your failure to explain yourself clearly" No, sometimes people just don't get it, willfully or otherwise.

No. You are confusing what you want me to be saying with what I am actually saying. I am saying: there is a fine tuning problem in physics. Nothing more, nothing less. All else is your projection.

A couple of dumb but sincere questions for Heddle.

In 1) if the answer is not luck, what is it?
2) sounds like an argument from authority by association. Why should I care for such a double fallacy?

You've repeatedly asserted that you are a scientist and that fine-tuning is a problem. You seem to poo-poo all discussion about possible solutions, which is at odds with what real scientists actually do. If you are here as a 'teacher', why are you making such a fuck up of it?

[zenbabe]

Ape you totally cock blocked my threefer.

Oops, SORRY! Mansplaining makes me interject at the worst moments :D

:lol:
gotta love how accidentally microrapey it can be to post on the 'pit

[Tony Parsehole]

Finally, a new Full Frontal Zealotry podcast
Trigger Warning: Dripping with privilege!
http://everdense.com/ffz/archives/283

I love your podcasts, thanks oh privileged one.

Thanks Jack, much appreciated.

yeah, they're funny as fuck.

[Ape+lust]

I don't think you cannot separate her Mormon sex story from her other talk at Skepticon, where she extolled the value of being funny. The most likely explanation is that there is a grain of truth somewhere in the Mormon story but it was really just a chance for her to put her "being funny" hypothesis into action.
If you approach the tale, not as a real account of a true incident, but as a badly told joke with an atrocious punchline, then it makes much more sense.
I don't tend to believe that she really would have dismissed the guy in that way. The whole "get the fuck out of here" line reeks of artificiality - it's like something designed specifically to get a "you go, girl!" reaction from her feminist fans.
In reality it sounds like a very bad piece of advice as to how to defuse a situation where someone decides they don't want to continue having sex. Utterly humiliating the other person might generate a cheap laugh on the retelling but how much can she know about the guy on the first date - especially how might he react to being humiliated like that.

I didn't buy her story, it reeked of self-aggrandizement. I didn't watch her comedy talk, but the 3rd bullet point in the screenshot I saw mentioned "punching down." Well, she blew that bit of advice on the same day, which is why she's catching grief from some Redditors. She might have thought it was okay because she was picking on a guy, but she painted the guy as square naif, and herself as dominant and jaded. For someone so keenly attuned to power differentials, it was a really stupid thing to do.

[windy]

I know Orac has huge issues with Diane Harper (who the wiki describes as the principal investigator of the clinical trials of Gardasil and Cervarix) here he explains why he thinks she is a crank, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/ ... the-judge/ Admittedly, I find it difficult to label the PI of the clinical trials as a crank or uninformed.

I am curious if anyone here can critique the article or describe what has happened in the past two years between its publication and now.

(My interest is that I have kids and I had Guillain-Barre and the CDC tells doctors not to vaccinate me. I've undergone surgery in hospitals where I knew an flu outbreak was present and I asked for the flu shot that targeted that and still could not get one. But Guillain Barre and being paralyzed in an ICU for weeks really sucks. So I am not an anti-vaxer per se, but I'm also not a believer that vaccines should be given willy nilly and even examining them is verboten.)

I don't know about Gardasil specifically, but it could be that since skeptical bloggers are used to debunking anti-vaccine propaganda, some of them have developed a tendency to err too far in the other direction and downplay actual (though rare) issues with vaccine safety. For example, from what I've seen, few of them have addressed the link between the swine flu vaccine and increase in narcolepsy cases observed in some countries:
http://www.thl.fi/en_US/web/en/pressrelease?id=26352

And the fear of giving ground to anti-vaxers can also create problems for the scientists reporting on vaccine side-effects:

At a Finnish medical convention in January 2011, a colleague approached neurologist Markku Partinen, laid a hand on his shoulder and said: "Markku, it's going to be a bad year for you."

In the following months, other scientists ridiculed him, questioned his methods and motives, and raised doubts about his mental stability. Colleagues began crossing the street to avoid him, he says.

Partinen, director of the Helsinki Sleep Clinic and Research Centre, had raised the alarm about a GlaxoSmithKline vaccine called Pandemrix. He had discovered the drug, used to protect people from H1N1 swine flu, may be linked to a jump in cases of narcolepsy, a rare sleep disorder, in children and young people. He knew his findings might help limit the risks of narcolepsy for other children around the world, but was fearful nonetheless. The work was bound to generate scientific suspicion and public anxiety. Indeed, he struggled to get his paper on the vaccine published.

His story underscores an increasingly tough challenge for scientists balancing compelling data with public concern over vaccines and their side effects. Treatments which stimulate immunity to disease are highly controversial. In the past couple of decades - especially after a British doctor made now-discredited claims linking the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine to autism - the field has become even more charged. After the false alarm sounded by British doctor Andrew Wakefield, some scientists say they are more hesitant to credit reports of potential side effects from vaccines.

The risk in this case seems to be linked to a particular genetic variant that increases the chances of an autoimmune response when exposed to the vaccine.

[Brive1987]

This is the poor mutt that came close to being Becky's new best friend.

He enjoys "playing with toys" - so they at least have that in common.

I'd go the needle myself.

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

[Pogsurf]

I don't think you cannot separate her Mormon sex story from her other talk at Skepticon, where she extolled the value of being funny. The most likely explanation is that there is a grain of truth somewhere in the Mormon story but it was really just a chance for her to put her "being funny" hypothesis into action.
If you approach the tale, not as a real account of a true incident, but as a badly told joke with an atrocious punchline, then it makes much more sense.
I don't tend to believe that she really would have dismissed the guy in that way. The whole "get the fuck out of here" line reeks of artificiality - it's like something designed specifically to get a "you go, girl!" reaction from her feminist fans.
In reality it sounds like a very bad piece of advice as to how to defuse a situation where someone decides they don't want to continue having sex. Utterly humiliating the other person might generate a cheap laugh on the retelling but how much can she know about the guy on the first date - especially how might he react to being humiliated like that.

I didn't buy her story, it reeked of self-aggrandizement. I didn't watch her comedy talk, but the 3rd bullet point in the screenshot I saw mentioned "punching down." Well, she blew that bit of advice on the same day, which is why she's catching grief from some Redditors. She might have thought it was okay because she was picking on a guy, but she painted the guy as square naif, and herself as dominant and jaded. For someone so keenly attuned to power differentials, it was a really stupid thing to do.

The SJW privilege narrative only needs a slight retelling for white women to end up on top of the heap. Certainly if I were a black women and I saw the pudgy pink princesses in action I would redraw the hierarchy thus:

White women
White men
Black men
Black women

[Ape+lust]

This is the poor mutt that came close to being Becky's new best friend.

He enjoys "playing with toys" - so they at least have that in common.

I'd go the needle myself.

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

If he's not adopted yet, he's not out of the woods. Some nitwit might buy him for her (which is why she gave his name), so he can enjoy a life locked in the bathroom while she's out at conferences or bars. Doggie, if you see red hair, RUUUUN!

[Brive1987]

he can enjoy a life locked in the bathroom while she's out at conferences or bars.

For a moment there I lost track of whether we back onto Reginald or still with the dog....

[windy]

Further, due to the nature of those attractors, they exhibit substantial degrees of homeostasis in themselves, that mutations in some elements or “genes” tend only to “perturb” the system briefly which then returns to its basic cycle. It is only rarely that there is a sufficiently severe mutation that is capable of “kicking” the system into cycling through a different set of elements. However, it seems that the implication there is that, as the system is tightly coupled – or loosely coupled between a large number of elements which may be the same thing, mutations tend not to be random affairs, but are changes that produce a cascade of other changes that are integrated, stable, and coherent – maybe somewhat similar to Gould’s “punctuated equilibria”.

Now that is of course based on reading between the lines, and on my own very limited understanding of some truly intricate processes – awe-inspiring ones, actually. However, if it is even marginally accurate – and Kauffman and many others sure seem to think it more than that – then it still suggests that self-organization – the coupled nature of all of those genes and their products – tends to make the argument or claim of “random variation” largely an untenable fiction.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/ ... 003116.jpg

[heddle]

I see: Your "as such" under #3 does not mean "therefore" but means "in addition". So #3 means that the entity which has free will must make non-random choices and also be culpable (or responsible) for that choice. Well, now you need to explain when an entity is culpable for an action in a way that does not involve free will so you don't have a circular reasoning in your definition. Or perhaps we can both agree that your definition sucks and leave it at that.

Leaving aside the moral culpability which you are using as a red herring--and stipulating that my definition sucks, unless you can explain how your chess program is not deterministic then it does not fit my sucky definition of free will. Don't move the goalposts. You claimed a chess program met my definition of free will--it doesn't. In fact it fails to so in the most trivial of manners. A chess program cannot make a choice that leads to alternate futures. Given the program's current state, its next "decision" is entirely determined.

[Ape+lust]

he can enjoy a life locked in the bathroom while she's out at conferences or bars.

For a moment there I lost track of whether we back onto Reginald or still with the dog....

:lol: She should get the dog, her current boyfriend would love the company. If it doesn't eat to many of his Kibbles 'n Bits.

[Brive1987]

While we have debated fine tuning OB has kept her finger on the pulse of male terrorism.

Whoever are involved are idiots. But really? Is this what the outrage rests on?

I also find it "interesting" that she used the obscure word 'jape'

Very Bart / Parsehole

The headline is also a tad leading.

BBCode (message boards & forums)
http://i.imgur.com/urd3XPI.jpg

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... on-or-gbh/

[Dick Strawkins]

I can see why she might have hesitated.

http://i.imgur.com/Unv71WM.jpg

[Ape+lust]

While we have debated fine tuning OB has kept her finger on the pulse of male terrorism.

Whoever are involved are idiots. But really? Is this what the outrage rests on?

I also find it "interesting" that she used the obscure word 'jape'

Very Bart / Parsehole

The headline is also a tad leading.

BBCode (message boards & forums)
http://i.imgur.com/urd3XPI.jpg

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... on-or-gbh/

She copies! She pastes! Plus, the secret sauce that keeps them coming back, her one sarcastic retort enriched from years of daily use: How dare they do X.

[Mykeru]

I didn't buy her story, it reeked of self-aggrandizement. I didn't watch her comedy talk, but the 3rd bullet point in the screenshot I saw mentioned "punching down." Well, she blew that bit of advice on the same day, which is why she's catching grief from some Redditors. She might have thought it was okay because she was picking on a guy, but she painted the guy as square naif, and herself as dominant and jaded. For someone so keenly attuned to power differentials, it was a really stupid thing to do.

It's like walking into the office and people saying "Hey, there's donuts". And then they walk away. They don't tell you where the donuts are. You just know there's a chocolate glazed with your name on it, but now someone else is eating it,

Link, you sadistic bastard.

[Ape+lust]

I can see why she might have hesitated.

http://i.imgur.com/Unv71WM.jpg

HAHAHAHA!! He's got his I'M SO HAPPY TO BE HERE face on. He'll puddle the floor if she shows up.

[Ape+lust]

I didn't buy her story, it reeked of self-aggrandizement. I didn't watch her comedy talk, but the 3rd bullet point in the screenshot I saw mentioned "punching down." Well, she blew that bit of advice on the same day, which is why she's catching grief from some Redditors. She might have thought it was okay because she was picking on a guy, but she painted the guy as square naif, and herself as dominant and jaded. For someone so keenly attuned to power differentials, it was a really stupid thing to do.

It's like walking into the office and people saying "Hey, there's donuts". And then they walk away. They don't tell you where the donuts are. You just know there's a chocolate glazed with your name on it, but now someone else is eating it,

Link, you sadistic bastard.

Her standup? Careful, you'll wince hard enough to break your face.



Reddit pile-on:

http://www.reddit.com/search?q=%22rebec ... 2&sort=new

[Pogsurf]

While we have debated fine tuning OB has kept her finger on the pulse of male terrorism.

Whoever are involved are idiots. But really? Is this what the outrage rests on?

I also find it "interesting" that she used the obscure word 'jape'

Very Bart / Parsehole

The headline is also a tad leading.

BBCode (message boards & forums)
http://i.imgur.com/urd3XPI.jpg

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... on-or-gbh/

The form allows anyone with internet access to anonymously finger people for sexual assault. Benson is arguing for evidence free allegations to be made against people ie Shermergate for colleges. Any rage should be rightly directed at the fools who believe due process can be circumvented by technology.

[Seymour]

So who do we listen to on a Physics question?
A physicist or a governemnt apparatchick.

You should save making an ass of yourself until after you lecture people. Otherwise there's no reason to stick around for the lecture.

Still being rational I see.
I suppose we should all listen to mykeru, he knows all and sees all

[Brive1987]

I can see why she might have hesitated.

http://i.imgur.com/Unv71WM.jpg

:lol: :lol: :lol: Where does an idea like that even come from?

[Dick Strawkins]

I didn't buy her story, it reeked of self-aggrandizement. I didn't watch her comedy talk, but the 3rd bullet point in the screenshot I saw mentioned "punching down." Well, she blew that bit of advice on the same day, which is why she's catching grief from some Redditors. She might have thought it was okay because she was picking on a guy, but she painted the guy as square naif, and herself as dominant and jaded. For someone so keenly attuned to power differentials, it was a really stupid thing to do.

It's like walking into the office and people saying "Hey, there's donuts". And then they walk away. They don't tell you where the donuts are. You just know there's a chocolate glazed with your name on it, but now someone else is eating it,

Link, you sadistic bastard.

Her standup? Careful, you'll wince hard enough to break your face.



Reddit pile-on:

http://www.reddit.com/search?q=%22rebec ... 2&sort=new

[youtube]xeec6MhaCDw[/youtube]

And here's the "how to be funny" talk she gave at the same conference.

The slide we discussed earlier appears at around 35 minutes 20 seconds.

[Mykeru]

Reddit pile-on:

http://www.reddit.com/search?q=%22rebec ... 2&sort=new

Yes, that.

Holy shit. I thought it was one thread. It's a whole box.

http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/ ... 30x445.jpg

Yummy!

[Badger3k]

That said, I haven't been following this particular discussion in any great detail, and it may have progressed well beyond my simple argument here...

It hasn't progressed beyond, "It is a problem therefore...?"

He seems reluctant to say "goddidit" and it looks like he wants to keep pointing to the problem till we all reach the conclusion that goddidit. Thats what it looks like.

Why don't we all skip to the next step and just discuss which god we want it to be? I'd like a religion with plenty of booze and orgies, but without tithing and human sacrifice.

Shiva. Because Remo WIlliams is AWESOME.

Yeah...even if he isn't Korean. (I am pretty sure you are not referring to the movie version)

[Barael]

While we have debated fine tuning OB has kept her finger on the pulse of male terrorism.

Whoever are involved are idiots. But really? Is this what the outrage rests on?

I also find it "interesting" that she used the obscure word 'jape'

Very Bart / Parsehole

The headline is also a tad leading.

BBCode (message boards & forums)
http://i.imgur.com/urd3XPI.jpg

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... on-or-gbh/

While you'd expect FTBers to be in favor of anonymous, evidence-free accusations of rape it doesn't take much of a functioning brain to see how problematic the university's system is. Even aside from the tremendous potential for abuse, it's also really unclear what exactly is the desired effect/gain here. Apparently the university officials have stated they won't convene any of their kangaroo courts based on what's submitted through the system; just invite the accused for "a talk".

Suppose an actual rape (and actual rapist) is reported through the system; they can't actually go after the perpetrator with an anonymous accuser and zero evidence, so the perp essential goes free as long as they have the good sense of denying the accusation (meanwhile the victim gets no justice nor protection either since essentially no action is taken). Basically they've set up an alternative "anonymous, no evidence" way of reporting rape which virtually guarantees no real consequences as opposed to actually filing a case, getting a rape kit as evidence etc.

How exactly is this going to help with reducing sexual assault on campuses seems like a question they didn't bother with overly much. Also note that this does presume that the university is good for its word (in that no-one will be charged bases on these anonymous accusations); that remains to be seen.

[Apples]

http://www.lolbrary.com/lolpics/284/i-d ... s-4284.jpg

That hat looks kind of racist.

[Southern]

A group of vandals recently attempted to maliciously burn a holiday billboard placed by the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) reading “Keep Saturn in Saturnalia,” placed in response to religious advertising, using gasoline.

http://justinvacula.com/2013/12/18/vand ... billboard/

--

I plan on working with the FFRF to again display a banner on Public Square in Wilkes-Barre. Last year, the holiday banner was vandalized and replaced with an American flag (likely in violation of the flag code). Hopefully all is well and gasoline-free this year.

[youtube]nxCkvNRg_QU[/youtube]

You forgot the TRIGGER WARNING: MOUSTACHE! Now I'm shaking in terror and developed PTSD. Thanks, Justin, you rapist.

But in all seriousness, nice to know you're working with FFRF. America is a weird place, indeed, with all this fanaticism and fundamentalism. Let's hope nobody burns nothing.

[Mykeru]

And this is why Reddit is often only a slim step above Twitter:

Rebecca Watson tries to live out rape fantasy MensRights.png

(83.04 KiB) Downloaded 346 times

It's a continuous source of amazement that people as thick as StoicSophist exist and that they manage to remember to drop their pants before they take a shit.

[Ape+lust]

Reddit pile-on:

http://www.reddit.com/search?q=%22rebec ... 2&sort=new

Yes, that.

Holy shit. I thought it was one thread. It's a whole box.

http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/ ... 30x445.jpg

Yummy!

Yeah, I think she was blindsided by the big reaction. So she put out her no-tree-having, only-dryer-lint-for-presents Christmas pity note to get ahead of it.

[Brive1987]

No, she really did have one of everything. No joke was implied, intended or assumed.

[Mykeru]

You forgot the TRIGGER WARNING: MOUSTACHE! Now I'm shaking in terror and developed PTSD. Thanks, Justin, you rapist.

ibghnvbPXpQkKC.jpg

(66.38 KiB) Downloaded 347 times

[Tony Parsehole]

You forgot the TRIGGER WARNING: MOUSTACHE! Now I'm shaking in terror and developed PTSD. Thanks, Justin, you rapist.

ibghnvbPXpQkKC.jpg

Trigger Warning: Moustache! (if you put your thumb over paul Simon's face)
http://www.freecodesource.com/album-cov ... 1-DVD).jpg

[Southern]

Complete this just-for-the-sake-of-argument sentence:

"Physics has a fine-tuning problem that it cannot resolve, therefore ___________"

I know we non-believers are but children and we have to be hand-held every step of the way, but Jesus Christ, The Meat Savior on a Stick, cut to the chase.

P.S. Everyone can play.

Physics has a fine-tuning problem that it cannot currently resolve, therefore physicists will work upon the solution using the scientific method. :think:

I'll answer Mykeru's question with Cards Against Humanity, because why not?

Physics has a fine-tuning problem that it cannot resolve, therefore Two midgets shitting inside a bucket.

Sounds about right.

[heddle]

1) What is problematic is that we do not understand how the constants happen to be in what appears to be a narrow range that permits life. At first blush it appears to be "luck" and as scientists we absolutely abhor"luck" as an explanation.
2) I'm not sure I ever met a physicist who, after thinking about it, doesn't agree it is a problem. Those who are cosmologists, astro, or particle physicists pretty much already know it is a problem A, say, solid state physicist--who might not spend time thinking about cosmology might not immediately agree--but in all cases I have experienced will agree after a discussion. So I literally do not personally know any physicist who says that it is not a problem.
3) You are mistaking condescension with insults. If anyone asks me a question in good faith, no matter how dumb, I will try to give a polite answer. That's the teacher in me. But if someone acts like a jackass then I can dish it back out. I have a lot of experience. I'm treated on here no different than I was treated on Pharyngula and I managed to survive there. Did I miss your similar moral outrage at the names I was called?

And I disagree that it is manifestly true that "So if you aren't being understood, the fault lies in your failure to explain yourself clearly" No, sometimes people just don't get it, willfully or otherwise.

No. You are confusing what you want me to be saying with what I am actually saying. I am saying: there is a fine tuning problem in physics. Nothing more, nothing less. All else is your projection.

A couple of dumb but sincere questions for Heddle.

In 1) if the answer is not luck, what is it?
2) sounds like an argument from authority by association. Why should I care for such a double fallacy?

You've repeatedly asserted that you are a scientist and that fine-tuning is a problem. You seem to poo-poo all discussion about possible solutions, which is at odds with what real scientists actually do. If you are here as a 'teacher', why are you making such a fuck up of it?

1) We don't know the answer. That is why it is a problem. Luck is one of the possible answers but the least satisfying for physicists. If there was (or if there is shown to be) no fine tuning then "the constants are just what they are" would be an OK answer for most of us, and how the constants got those values would be a much less intriguing question. It some sense instead of "fine-tuning" the problem could also be called "the unsatisfying appearance of luck problem" for cosmology.

2) What sounds like an argument by authority? Is the fact that what I have written, which boils down to

i) fine tuning refers to the observation that the universe's ability to synthesize heavy elements appears to be on a "razor's edge" and
ii) physicists believe fine-tuning is a problem

really a logical fallacy (a double one even!) when arguing against the counter position presented here, which I would characterize as

i) no it is not a problem for physics, and
ii) the solution is either a) because who cares? The constants are what they are, or b) some variation of a puddle argument or c) maybe there could be life without heavy elements.

You don't win an argument simply by claiming a logical fallacy. Even a double one. That is the cheapest of self-satisfying tactics.

How is it that I poo-poo not just some but all discussion about possible solutions? It seems to me that I have repeatedly discussed and introduced some of possible solutions. I have:

* Agreed that luck is a possible solution but the least satisfying of all. I am confident most physicists agree.

* Stated and weakly endorsed he the multiverse solutions without poo-poo-ing them. I said way back that they are presently the best fit, in that they generally predict that the constants will appear as a random draw which, combined with an effective infinity of universes, results in a straightforward anthropic explanation of our "luck." To me that is the most satisfying physics solution. It suffers, at least at the moment, from a serious lack of testability. Is pointing that out "poo-poo-ing?"

* After someone brought it up, I commented fairly (I think) on blackhole cosmic natural selection. Is the fact that I pointed out it suffers from some vagueness "poo-poo-ing" it? Is your definition of "poo-poo-ing" equivalent to "failed to offer a ringing endorsement?"

* Acknowledged that demonstrating that the fine-tuning is an illusion is in principle a very good approach--perhaps even the best approach. It suffers no real obstacles in principle except that done properly it is an extremely difficult approach.

The most you can say is I poo-pooed Victor Stenger's approach to this. We could go through his book in detail but for now I provided only the circumstantial evidence that it appears only Victor Stenger and non-scientists (or perhaps out-of-field) scientists who read his book think that he has succeeded. The book was not peer-reviewed--nor is it a popularized companion to peer-reviewed research. Cosmologists continue to treat the fine tuning as a problem and make no reference in the professional literature to the problem having been solved by Stenger.

I have arguably poo-pooed solutions of the form "well maybe there could be life with only hydrogen and helium." I stand by that. If that's what you are referring to then mea culpa.

And I am not here as a teacher even though I happen to be a teacher/professor. Perhaps I am making a fuck-up of it. But it certainly is easy for you to accuse me of logical fallacies and pedagogical impotency without saying anything substantive.

[Mykeru]

Physics has a fine-tuning problem that it cannot resolve, therefore Two midgets shitting inside a bucket.

I think we have a winner.

[Pogsurf]

The more Heddle talks, the less I believe he is a scientist. He certainly has more knowledge than me about fine-tuning, but why does he only ever talk about "the constants"? Even I know each of them will have a name and it must be true that some will be more problematic than others. It would be far more convincing if he could spell this out. Also any scientist should have some grounding in philosophy, enough to spot the glaring logical fallacies in their own reasoning, before they try to spread them to others. In short, why does Heddle claim to be a scientist, but talk more like a theist?

[BarnOwl]

I can see why she might have hesitated.

http://i.imgur.com/Unv71WM.jpg

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Seriously, though, and regardless of her financial situation, she has too much of a traveling lifestyle to take on a dog as a pet. If money were the only issue, and she really wanted to help homeless dogs, she could foster them for the local animal shelter or Humane Society. The organizations pay for food, vet care, etc., and the foster "parents" socialize the dogs and train them. I don't think RW is an all-around bad person, and I've no doubt she loves her cats and treats them well, but the dog thing seems like an attention- and sympathy-grabbing spur of the moment stunt. If she could get a sloth or something else more exotic and unique she'd do it in a heartbeat.

[heddle]

The more Heddle talks, the less I believe he is a scientist. He certainly has more knowledge than me about fine-tuning, but why does he only ever talk about "the constants"? Even I know each of them will have a name and it must be true that some will be more problematic than others. It would be far more convincing if he could spell this out. Also any scientist should have some grounding in philosophy, enough to spot the glaring logical fallacies in their own reasoning, before they try to spread them to others. In short, why does Heddle claim to be a scientist, but talk more like a theist?

Why do I only talk about the constants? Because that is the very essence of fine tuning. Do you want a list of the ones that in one form or another appear in the fine tuning argument? I went into some detail on the cosmological constant-because it is the most stressing--but there are fine tunings related to the strength of gravity, the ratio of the neutron to proton mass, the ratios of the strengths of the forces, the dimensionality of space, the value of the electric charge, the matter density of the universe, the density of dark matter, the entropy of the universe, the generations of quarks and leptons, the amount of nutrino mixing... does that help?

And how have I talked like a theist (on this thread?) Where have I put god into any gap? Where have I said or implied (apart from your apparent ability to read my mind) that goddidit?

What are the glaring logical fallacies? Again with the self-satisfying charge.

And, if for the sake of argument we agree to what is not true, that my secret agenda is proselytize, it still doesn't matter. Science, as I stated earlier, is agnostic about motivations. It works the same for everyone. Theists, atheists, rapists, murderers--science is open to them all. There is no judging in science and no crying in science. You just have to obey the rules. It turns a blind eye to the beliefs and character of the practitioner. As I pointed out earlier you don't have to like science or even believe in it to do it. It is a method for investigating the natural world. If your answer to a scientific debate is "but my opponent is a theist" then you have lost. Heal yourself before cheaply accusing me of a glaring logical fallacy.

As for why I claim to be a scientist-- well I am employed by a university to teach science and also by a national laboratory to conduct nuclear physics research. Does that count? Having said that I will admit that I am nothing more than an average physicist. And since somebody might (it has happened N times) google scholar with the name "David Heddle" and say "ha ha, almost no publications" I will save you the trouble:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=D.+ ... sdt=0%2C47

I publish under "D. Heddle" and "D. P. Heddle" only rarely under "David Heddle".

[Tony Parsehole]

I can see why she might have hesitated.

http://i.imgur.com/Unv71WM.jpg

Strawkins wins. Flawless victory.

[BarnOwl]

I note the recent tendency to see RW as boringly "old 'pit". :bjarte:

So feel free to ignore this recent update.

A Long Thank You and Update -- Hello Patron Friends!

Apologies for being a bit quiet the past week. I'll be honest with you: I've been a bit down, which makes it tough to get on camera because I think it shows. I blame the snow piling up outside (I had to stop my daily runs), the impending holiday (I normally love Xmas but this year we're saving all our pennies, so there's no tree or presents), and a recent influx of really truly vicious trolls (Reddit's Men's Rights forum has once again remembered I exist). Also I saw a dog for adoption on Petfinder named Lord Dorkley and I am in love with him but we can't afford a new family member at the moment.

All that whining aside, I'm recovering at a healthy pace and am going to try to record something fun tonight. The support all of you have given me has been a huge, huge help – not just monetarily, but psychologically, and I want you to know that. Sincerely: thanks.

On that note, the first Google+ hangout was fun, and I'll be scheduling a new one each month for whoever wants to join. I have a number of friends who have gamely offered to join in, as Maki did this time, so you can look forward to that.

All of which brings me to this: I am not ignoring the fact that we passed the $400/video mark, meaning that I am now to sing a little song. When I made that goal, I was joking because I didn't really think we'd hit it and I couldn't think of any better thing to write, but god damn it I made a promise and I intend to keep it. I'm hoping to solicit some help from one of my songwriting friends, of which I inexplicably have gathered quite a few. So, know that I am 100% going to do this, but it may take some time because I want it to be done right, and I have no idea what I'm doing.

That's it for now! Happy Merry Whatever.

Best,
Rebecca

It's more than a little ironic for a well-known atheist/skeptic to bemoan the lack of an Xmas tree and presents during the holiday season. If you're going to mock the Christians for their rituals and chastise the Christmas crass materialists for their greed, then it's probably best not to whinge about your inability to join in with their celebrations.

[Southern]

It all makes sense when you look at fine tuning as God.

But not looking at fine tuning as toilets?

It all makes sense when you look at women as finely tuned toilets


Actually, no, none of this thread makes any fucking sense. Unless you throw in some "quantum" babble and Indian mystical teachings... then it makes sense to crazy people

It all makes quantum sense if you think quantically of quantic women as quantic toilets.

Now send me money.

[Ape+lust]

You've come a long way, baby.

Procter and Gamble smells money in social justice. Their new ad pitches shampoo by acknowledging women's oppression and asking them to join "the movement." Will the justiceteers fall for it? Well, it's gone viral, closing in on 10 million views. Shine Strong, independent empowered ladies!



http://www.marketwatch.com/story/panten ... 2013-12-19
http://business.time.com/2013/12/17/a-l ... razy-over/

http://i.imgur.com/Mjeh3bo.png

[Ericb]

I note the recent tendency to see RW as boringly "old 'pit". :bjarte:

So feel free to ignore this recent update.

A Long Thank You and Update -- Hello Patron Friends!

Apologies for being a bit quiet the past week. I'll be honest with you: I've been a bit down, which makes it tough to get on camera because I think it shows. I blame the snow piling up outside (I had to stop my daily runs), the impending holiday (I normally love Xmas but this year we're saving all our pennies, so there's no tree or presents), and a recent influx of really truly vicious trolls (Reddit's Men's Rights forum has once again remembered I exist). Also I saw a dog for adoption on Petfinder named Lord Dorkley and I am in love with him but we can't afford a new family member at the moment.

All that whining aside, I'm recovering at a healthy pace and am going to try to record something fun tonight. The support all of you have given me has been a huge, huge help – not just monetarily, but psychologically, and I want you to know that. Sincerely: thanks.

On that note, the first Google+ hangout was fun, and I'll be scheduling a new one each month for whoever wants to join. I have a number of friends who have gamely offered to join in, as Maki did this time, so you can look forward to that.

All of which brings me to this: I am not ignoring the fact that we passed the $400/video mark, meaning that I am now to sing a little song. When I made that goal, I was joking because I didn't really think we'd hit it and I couldn't think of any better thing to write, but god damn it I made a promise and I intend to keep it. I'm hoping to solicit some help from one of my songwriting friends, of which I inexplicably have gathered quite a few. So, know that I am 100% going to do this, but it may take some time because I want it to be done right, and I have no idea what I'm doing.

That's it for now! Happy Merry Whatever.

Best,
Rebecca

Hahahaha!! Dance Rebecca! Dance for your Patreon masters!
http://i.imgflip.com/5k5he.gif

Fight the Patreonarchy!

[BarnOwl]

Procter and Gamble used to have an interesting company logo, but then they caved to offended godbags in the 1980s and changed it to something boring and innocuous.

From the Cesspit of Lies:

P&G's former logo originated in 1851 as a crude cross that barge workers on the Ohio River painted on cases of P&G star candles to identify them. P&G later changed this symbol into a trademark that showed a man in the moon overlooking 13 stars, said to commemorate the original 13 colonies.[34]
The company received unwanted media publicity in the 1980s when rumors spread that the moon-and-stars logo was a satanic symbol. The accusation was based on a particular passage in the Bible, specifically Revelation 12:1, which states: "And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of 12 stars." P&G's logo consisted of a man's face on the moon surrounded by 13 stars, and some claimed that the logo was a mockery of the heavenly symbol alluded to in the aforementioned verse, thus construing the logo to be satanic. Where the flowing beard meets the surrounding circle, three curls were said to be a mirror image of the number 666, or the reflected number of the beast. At the top and bottom, the hair curls in on itself, and was said to be the two horns like those of a ram. The moon-and-stars logo was discontinued in 1985 because of the controversy.[35]
These interpretations have been denied by company officials, and no evidence linking the company to the Church of Satan or any other occult organization has ever been presented. The company unsuccessfully sued Amway from 1995 to 2003 over rumors forwarded through a company voicemail system in 1995. In 2011, the company successfully sued individual Amway distributors for reviving and propagating the false rumors.[36] The Church of Satan denies being supported by Procter & Gamble.[37]

P&G is the company responsible for Febreze, a product so heinous I can't even bring myself to discuss it. :shock:

[Ape+lust]

Procter and Gamble used to have an interesting company logo, but then they caved to offended godbags in the 1980s and changed it to something boring and innocuous.

From the Cesspit of Lies:

P&G's former logo originated in 1851 as a crude cross that barge workers on the Ohio River painted on cases of P&G star candles to identify them. P&G later changed this symbol into a trademark that showed a man in the moon overlooking 13 stars, said to commemorate the original 13 colonies.[34]
The company received unwanted media publicity in the 1980s when rumors spread that the moon-and-stars logo was a satanic symbol. The accusation was based on a particular passage in the Bible, specifically Revelation 12:1, which states: "And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of 12 stars." P&G's logo consisted of a man's face on the moon surrounded by 13 stars, and some claimed that the logo was a mockery of the heavenly symbol alluded to in the aforementioned verse, thus construing the logo to be satanic. Where the flowing beard meets the surrounding circle, three curls were said to be a mirror image of the number 666, or the reflected number of the beast. At the top and bottom, the hair curls in on itself, and was said to be the two horns like those of a ram. The moon-and-stars logo was discontinued in 1985 because of the controversy.[35]
These interpretations have been denied by company officials, and no evidence linking the company to the Church of Satan or any other occult organization has ever been presented. The company unsuccessfully sued Amway from 1995 to 2003 over rumors forwarded through a company voicemail system in 1995. In 2011, the company successfully sued individual Amway distributors for reviving and propagating the false rumors.[36] The Church of Satan denies being supported by Procter & Gamble.[37]

I remember that silly horseshit. I never noticed they ditched the moon logo, though. Chumps. Funny, the fundies haven't noticed the Starbucks mermaid is still doing her ankles-behind-the-ears thing, the saucy trollop.

P&G is the company responsible for Febreze, a product so heinous I can't even bring myself to discuss it. :shock:

I have a cat who thinks peeing in corners is a fine thing to do. Happily, she hates Febreze (and fabric softeners). I don't blame her, I can't stand the cloying stuff either.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

While we have debated fine tuning OB has kept her finger on the pulse of male terrorism.

Whoever are involved are idiots. But really? Is this what the outrage rests on?

I also find it "interesting" that she used the obscure word 'jape'

Very Bart / Parsehole

The headline is also a tad leading.

BBCode (message boards & forums)
http://i.imgur.com/urd3XPI.jpg

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... on-or-gbh/

I've had enough with this passive-agressive bullshit "because x is y, right?". Benson and friends are getting on my nerves more than they should. I may have to take my distances from this shit for a while.

Or maybe I could call her a fucking old, shrivelled lying twat, and just relax while having lunch and watching An idiot Abroad.

Yeah, I'll do that.

[Ape+lust]

While we have debated fine tuning OB has kept her finger on the pulse of male terrorism.

Whoever are involved are idiots. But really? Is this what the outrage rests on?

I also find it "interesting" that she used the obscure word 'jape'

Very Bart / Parsehole

The headline is also a tad leading.

BBCode (message boards & forums)
http://i.imgur.com/urd3XPI.jpg

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... on-or-gbh/

I've had enough with this passive-agressive bullshit "because x is y, right?". Benson and friends are getting on my nerves more than they should. I may have to take my distances from this shit for a while.

Or maybe I could call her a fucking old, shrivelled lying twat, and just relax while having lunch and watching An idiot Abroad.

Yeah, I'll do that.

You are a man of sound instincts.

[Karmakin]

While we have debated fine tuning OB has kept her finger on the pulse of male terrorism.

Whoever are involved are idiots. But really? Is this what the outrage rests on?

I also find it "interesting" that she used the obscure word 'jape'

Very Bart / Parsehole

The headline is also a tad leading.

BBCode (message boards & forums)
http://i.imgur.com/urd3XPI.jpg

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... on-or-gbh/

I've had enough with this passive-agressive bullshit "because x is y, right?". Benson and friends are getting on my nerves more than they should. I may have to take my distances from this shit for a while.

Or maybe I could call her a fucking old, shrivelled lying twat, and just relax while having lunch and watching An idiot Abroad.

Yeah, I'll do that.

This is what those people simply don't understand. Why can't these people understand that there are a LOT of people out there who are VERY sensitive to the concept of being attacked either socially or systematically and react strongly in opposition to any sign of this? They should try having a little fucking empathy for once.

They're used to their own badness getting a pass, so they don't understand, but I think a lot of people innately understand that a form like this would be used to get people...either say if a date went bad, or if someone did something they didn't like, or even just to plain old-fashion bully them. That's how this would be used, for the most part. Real reporting of sexual assault? Of course, they'd be going to the POLICE.

Now, I don't think that this particular action was useful...it looked bad from an optics point of view, which IMO is always important. But note that nowhere in that post did Ophelia stop to actually think about WHY people are angry about this sort of thing. She just chalks it up to "misogyny" and leaves it at that.

[Tony Parsehole]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7322/1145 ... e74a_o.png

[Tony Parsehole]

P&G is the company responsible for Febreze, a product so heinous I can't even bring myself to discuss it. :shock:

I love Febreze. I can make my socks and underpants last all week with that shit.

[Lsuoma]

Some species of monkey are liable to be more problematic than others...

http://bowmanvillezoo.com/wp-content/up ... O-ICON.png

True.

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

Looks like Peter Cook.

[Dick Strawkins]

Some species of monkey are liable to be more problematic than others...

http://bowmanvillezoo.com/wp-content/up ... O-ICON.png

True.

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

Looks like Peter Cook.

[youtube]SZxTb01OgNE[/youtube]

[BarnOwl]

I love Febreze. I can make my socks and underpants last all week with that shit.

They've improved the fabric sprays somewhat:

http://www.goodguide.com/products/38499 ... fects-with

However, the Febreze candles contain problematic/banned ingredients:

http://www.goodguide.com/products/38501 ... adows-rain

"Febreze Candles, EPA Superfund Meadows and Acid Rain"

[Ape+lust]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7322/1145 ... e74a_o.png

HAHAHA!! Better to delete before you post. Strawkins will find it if you hide it in an abandoned Moldavian lonely hearts forum.

[Ape+lust]

Some species of monkey are liable to be more problematic than others...

http://bowmanvillezoo.com/wp-content/up ... O-ICON.png

True.

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

Looks like Peter Cook.

Love Bedazzled. Hate the remake. I wish they'd quit doing that.