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

Gumby wrote:

mordacious1 wrote:GUMBY

I hope you don't mind....

Hahahaha. Now Steersman is going to get all huffy again and accuse me of misusing my moderator privilege to change your avatar without your consent. AVATAR RAPE!!!!

Sheesh. We’ll be in our dotage – probably closer for me than you – and you’ll still be trying to bust my chops for that? ;-)

But I try not to make the same boneheaded mistake, at least in the same year.

justinvacula wrote:Edwina Rogers takes stage around 4:15PM EST with talk "Expanding the movement beyond the base - women and minorities"

How are women not part of the base? And why is the demographic MAJORITY given treatment as if they're part of the minorities? If women don't want to join the skeptic/atheist communities, that's a choice. It's not like anyone is actually keeping them out...

deLurch wrote:

James Caruthers wrote:Plus, there are free databases that store this information and I have a morbid curiosity to know where all that Skepchick money goes.

The only thing your would see would be a line item called "Education & Outreach," aka Rebbeca's travel & bar fund plus per diem.

If they're clearing more than (I think) 50k a year, they're filling out a full form 990 and that means details!

Surly Amy claimed that she was "broke" because she chose not to sell anything at DragonCon... And then apparently changed her ticket (meaning she had a premium ticket I guess) and left. I really don't think they have much organization going on at their organization if they're living hand to mouth, relying on con-goers and organizers to fund their trips. Yet another reason I'm curious whether or not they're paying taxes. *Believing* your company is or should be considered a non-profit is meaningless if you aren't registered and are making enough to support multiple individuals. I don't see how anything the Skepchicks do is "in the public interest." Whatever you think of feminism, it is a political ideology, not a public good. Nobody would even ask whether or not spreading Republican or Liberal ideology via attending conferences and selling shitty merch was "in the public interest."

justinvacula wrote:Quick response to Dave's talk:

He's all about harsh criticism of religion and says it's others' problem if they are offended, but if you're critical of feminism/feminist ideas everything changes for whatever reason.

He says, "Avoid attacking intra-movement whenever possible," but enables people who frequently do that by inviting them to speak at AA conferences or otherwise approving/condoning/tolerating their inclusion at AA events.

Satirize Mohammad all day by drawing him even though you know people will claim offense, but don't dare photoshop FTBloggers' signs with a harmless "We love Justin" joke. The horror!

You say that like it's something new.

JackRayner wrote:

Cunning Punt wrote:
Balsa is a hardwood too, what's your point?

You remind me of that pedantic person I heard the other day, in response to someone saying they had a daddy long legs in their bathroom, and they hated spiders, informing them that daddy long legs aren't spiders. Oh wait, that was me.

Are too! :hand:

http://www.creepycrawlies.info/images/c ... ider-2.jpg

Opiliones.

Guest wrote:
I am disgusted with the fat shaming in these posts. How dare you tell overweight people to eat less and exercise more? Would you be a rape apologist by telling women that they might want to keep an eye on their own drink? Would you be a misogynist by suggesting vendors should pay attention to a conference's policies?

FOR SHAME!!1!!

Is fat even capable of being ashamed?

JackRayner wrote: Are too! :hand:

[zimg]http://www.creepycrawlies.info/images/c ... ider-2.jpg[/zimg]

Argh, trigger warning pl0x.

Al Stefanelli wrote:In case you missed last night's show:

"The Petulant Goddess: Feminism, Humanism and Atheism"

We had as our guests Becky Garrison, EllenBeth Wachs, Matt Facciani & Jen August (along with lengthily call ins with Joe Zamecki, Paul Loebe and Robert Robinson), the link to the podcast is below.

This was a very intense show, as several of the guests and callers were victims of brutally violent rape, and offer their point of view of what is so wrong with places like Atheism+, the FC(n), the Block Bot, preventative measures with regard to personal safety, victim blaming, the PZ Myers/Shermer fiasco, etc.

Listen Here

Great podcast Al. I’ll definitely check out future ones.

However, in passing, I think you might want to consider addressing a question Joe Zamecki raised about the abandoning of the requirement for evidence in evaluating “feminist” claims. But, as we briefly discussed in the chat page – is that archived? – I think that also applies to many of the other topics and issues he mentioned – birth control, taxation, death penalty, etc., etc. Which I think goes to the heart of some of the issues that your neuroscientist guest [Facciani] touched on briefly, and which I think bears some serious looking into – i.e., just exactly how it is that we think, how the gears and wheels mesh in the hardware.

And while many of us seem to be familiar with the various problematic aspects of that – confirmation bias for example, I think many aren’t really aware of how prone we are to generalizing and stereotyping: seeing four white swans and leaping to the conclusion that all swans are white – the problem of induction, of connecting a few dots and then dogmatically insisting that that cloud formation doesn’t just look like a weasel, but that it is a weasel.

For instance, I think EllenBeth Wachs gave something of an example of that, something I had wanted to question her about but ran out of time to do so. While I certainly think she has more than a little reason to be bent out of shape over her savaging by the pharyngulanas, I also think she was “guilty” of some of that generalization. And while I don’t remember the specifics of her phrasing, it was, I think, analogous to someone noting that some members of group G – say g1, g3, and g7 – are saying X, and noting that other members of Group G - say g2, g4, and g8 – are saying “not X” [¬X], and then turning around and insisting that all of Group G are hypocritical and inconsistent for saying X and “not X”. A very common behaviour which tends to derail conversations, I think, and rather quickly.

bovarchist wrote:

HelpingHand wrote:With Cards Against Humanity being the topic du jour... I present another source of terribly offensive humor.

Chopping Block

Can anyone grok the September 13th pictogram? My wife and I can't get it, but then again we thought poplar was a softwood.

Closest I can get to it:

Fried Egg + Teeth + Hurt + Tea + N

Friday the 13.

\Merci beaucoup. The agony of being stumped by a one panel pyschopath comic.

Had been trying to force a Friday the 13th solution for a bit but never thought of hurt for the knee image. Our voca^H^H^H^H^Hwords use. Not many. Thinking hard. Social justice!!!

Would posit that the N is an exponential nth to turn the 13 into a 13th.

I suppose I am probably being overly critical, but what the heck; I've been a professional entertainer, in one form or another, for much of my life. Anyway, I really wanted to enjoy Al's/Deborah's radio show with Becky Garrison and EBW etc., but I just couldn't stick with it. Here's why:

1. Too much imitation of hyperbolic cliche and trite "commercial" radioisms and unnecessary (and unlistenable in such a low quality audio environment) special effects, music, and add-type blather.
2. Far, far too talky without anyone making any points; lots of empty, meaningless blah blah.
3. Dead air ... dead air ... dead air.
4. Laughing at themselves when uncalled for.
5. Laughing at themselves over private jokes.
6. Apologia about technical problems.

Potential fixes:

1. The new (as of 15 years ago), naturalism would be great (plus, concision).
2. Some kind of scripting would not hurt at all.
3. Ditto 2.
4. Ditto 2, and how about only laughing at actual jokes; universal jokes.
5. No, just no, and Ditto 2.
6. Does not need to be discussed. Just fix it, and/or leave it (narratively) alone.

Is it possible to improve the audio quality, even as little as 25%? It's just, for me, unlistenable.

Interesting topics and, Al, I am always supportive of your efforts, but scripting, strong time-conciousness, scripting, concision, scripting, all helps.

....

Or am I just completely wrong for hoping for some higher level of professionalism? Am I asking for too much?

bovarchist wrote:Did anyone else catch that not one, but TWO of Bill Maher's guests on Real Time last night made veiled cracks about vaccination?

First, it was Dr. Edwin Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Bill was going on about how NO level of radiation was safe (ignoring that without radiation, he wouldn't have a TV show) and Lyman made offhand reference to how small amounts of something bad can actually be OK, "like vaccines". It might not have been intentional.

And then it was Bill Nye. Maher briefly worried about their water cups getting mixed up, and Nye said something like "You don't need a vaccination, you're fine." That definitely seemed intentional.

Bill Maher is a known anti-vaccine cunt. They must have been ribbing on him for it.

John Greg wrote:I suppose I am probably being overly critical, but what the heck; I've been a professional entertainer, in one form or another, for much of my life. Anyway, I really wanted to enjoy Al's/Deborah's radio show with Becky Garrison and EBW etc., but I just couldn't stick with it. Here's why:

1. Too much imitation of hyperbolic cliche and trite "commercial" radioisms and unnecessary (and unlistenable in such a low quality audio environment) special effects, music, and add-type blather.
2. Far, far too talky without anyone making any points; lots of empty, meaningless blah blah.
3. Dead air ... dead air ... dead air.
4. Laughing at themselves when uncalled for.
5. Laughing at themselves over private jokes.
6. Apologia about technical problems.

Potential fixes:

1. The new (as of 15 years ago), naturalism would be great (plus, concision).
2. Some kind of scripting would not hurt at all.
3. Ditto 2.
4. Ditto 2, and how about only laughing at actual jokes; universal jokes.
5. No, just no, and Ditto 2.
6. Does not need to be discussed. Just fix it, and/or leave it (narratively) alone.

Is it possible to improve the audio quality, even as little as 25%? It's just, for me, unlistenable.

Interesting topics and, Al, I am always supportive of your efforts, but scripting, strong time-conciousness, scripting, concision, scripting, all helps.

....

Or am I just completely wrong for hoping for some higher level of professionalism? Am I asking for too much?

We demand a refund!

Lsuoma wrote:

JackRayner wrote:

Cunning Punt wrote:
Balsa is a hardwood too, what's your point?

You remind me of that pedantic person I heard the other day, in response to someone saying they had a daddy long legs in their bathroom, and they hated spiders, informing them that daddy long legs aren't spiders. Oh wait, that was me.

Are too! :hand:

http://www.creepycrawlies.info/images/c ... ider-2.jpg

Opiliones.

Pholcidae :whistle:

welch wrote:

Cunning Punt wrote: Balsa is a hardwood too, what's your point?

You remind me of that pedantic person I heard the other day, in response to someone saying they had a daddy long legs in their bathroom, and they hated spiders, informing them that daddy long legs aren't spiders. Oh wait, that was me.

I'm glad I know that though. For whatever reason, know that means they don't freak me the fuck out.

Phobias are weird as shit sometimes.

ROBOKiTTY wrote:

JackRayner wrote: Are too! :hand:

[zimg]http://www.creepycrawlies.info/images/c ... ider-2.jpg[/zimg]

Argh, trigger warning pl0x.

Sorry about that. Sometimes arguing with Feminists too much puts me in their headspace, and I forget that my lived experience as an arachnophobe [I'm Ok with images] doesn't trump others'.

:D

VAXherd wrote:[If you get Mrs. VAXherd riled about The Injustices She Experiences As A Woman, one of her big gotos is that back when she had to wait at bus stops at night, saying "I have a boyfriend" did not work.

This phrase would have set off Rystefn's "Shag-Alert" if she was within 3 miles of his house. He'd then leap into his Shagmobile and race to the bus stop to see if the woman and her boyfriend wanted to have sex with him, his current date, his previous three dates, and his cousin's dog.

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:

VAXherd wrote:[If you get Mrs. VAXherd riled about The Injustices She Experiences As A Woman, one of her big gotos is that back when she had to wait at bus stops at night, saying "I have a boyfriend" did not work.

This phrase would have set off Rystefn's "Shag-Alert" if she was within 3 miles of his house. He'd then leap into his Shagmobile and race to the bus stop to see if the woman and her boyfriend wanted to have sex with him, his current date, his previous three dates, and his cousin's dog.

http://pbfcomics.com/archive_b/PBF090-Mrs._Hammer.jpg

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:

VAXherd wrote:[If you get Mrs. VAXherd riled about The Injustices She Experiences As A Woman, one of her big gotos is that back when she had to wait at bus stops at night, saying "I have a boyfriend" did not work.

This phrase would have set off Rystefn's "Shag-Alert" if she was within 3 miles of his house. He'd then leap into his Shagmobile and race to the bus stop to see if the woman and her boyfriend wanted to have sex with him, his current date, his previous three dates, and his cousin's dog.

http://media.screened.com/uploads/0/384 ... _wagon.jpg

didymos wrote:

JackRayner wrote:
So...yeah. False alarm. It's just Cards Against Humanity again. Their quoting of this game seems to catch a lot of you off guard. :think:

Oh, please. It's still entirely hypocritical. The whole "Oh, it's just CAH" thing is ridiculous of them to pull because, as we've all been told many times, intent is not magic.

You know who else loves CAH?

Adria Richards.

http://uberfeminist.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... -joke.html

Parody Accountant wrote:

Tony Parsehole wrote: Fuck. That. Shit.
I'd rather play Connect 4 with only 3 counters each.

Hahaha...

Offtopic: I just came across a weird tidbit. Connect 4 is a solved game.

HA! Very weird....I learned that fact straight after I wrote my comment coz I randomly looked at the Connect 4 entry on Wikipedia.

JackRayner wrote:

Lsuoma wrote: Opiliones.

Pholcidae :whistle:

Tipulidae :dance:

AnonymousCowherd wrote:
No, no, not at all. We play it that way to go along with the game, but (and we need you to keep this to yourself), CAH was actually invented by a well known 'pitter as a way to put vile words into FTBer's mouths. They still haven't twigged yet and are trying to play it "ironically". Which is about as useful as POMO teapot.

I think a lot of your comments deserve more recognition than they get. This was one of them.

Cunt of Personality wrote:
Neither. It was due to John...

....Lloyd inventing the patented crop rotator.

Guestus Aurelius wrote:

JackRayner wrote:

Lsuoma wrote: Opiliones.

Pholcidae :whistle:

Tipulidae :dance:

Anusol :shifty:

Grothe is being accused of things again.

http://storify.com/UAJamie/more-manipul ... -dj-grothe

"I was naive enough to not ever write up a contract. Our original agreement was in email. I trusted the JREF and I trusted DJ. Wrongly."

"I basically gave up up to $3000 to avoid conflict and make sure the @WomenThinking project was followed through on."

Wait... someone reneged on a deal, so you made a new even bigger deal with them? :think:

Guestus Aurelius wrote:

JackRayner wrote:

Lsuoma wrote: Opiliones.

Pholcidae :whistle:

Tipulidae :dance:

[youtube]LKWltfTDvdE[/youtube]

Then the daddy longlegs looked at me directly
With a gaze that could dissect me
And he asked me in a whisper
"Have you got any sisters?"

Tribble wrote:

mordacious1 wrote:

Early Cuyler wrote:
FFS, Poplar is a HARDWOOD, not a softwood.

Jesusfuckingchrist why are so many slymepitters so scientifically illiterate??

You made another dumbfuck mistake that could've been avoided by looking at wikipedia.

Poplar wood comes from the American tulip tree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liriodendron_tulipifera
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populus

Erm...from the second Wiki link you provided:

The soft, fine-grained wood of tulip trees is known as "poplar" (short for "yellow poplar") in the U.S., but marketed abroad as "American tulipwood" or by other names. It is very widely used where a cheap, easy-to-work and stable wood is needed.

The nice thing about being the son, brother, nephew, cousin and grandson of timbermen is that you tend to pick up some stuff about wood. What makes a 'softwood' and a 'hardwood' isn't the 'obvious' thing that people think. In fact, it has nothing to do with the density of the wood.

It has to do with the method of the tree's reproduction. Angiosperms are 'hardwoods' and drop seeds with some sort of covering (like a fruit (orange) or a shell (walnut)). Gymnosperms are 'softwoods' and drop their seeds without a covering (though they may be in a cone which is not part of the seed, like a pine cone).

Angiosperms are almost always deciduous and tend have harder, denser wood. But not always. Gymnosperms tend to be evergreens and tend to have lighter, less dense wood. But not always. In timber, they just call them "evergreens" and 'deciduous.' (And some other colorful names like "peckerpole.")

So we get things like balsa wood, classified as a 'hardwood' when it's pretty much the softest and lightest wood commercially harvested. Something one could easly drive a screwdriver through. OTOH, we can get southern yellow pine (softwood) that can get as hard as oak after it's aged and all the pitch in it has hardened. Something that would require great force in order to drive a screwdriver through.

See, it's about the seeds. Not the wood. But, hey, it was a fun game!

Indeed. I've learned several thing about woods in these comments, such as what defines the difference between the hard and soft woods, so thanks for that, Tribble. It stands to reason that there would be a formal system for measuring and grading the physical hardness of woods, and I now know what that is, too: the Janka Hardness rating.

http://www.wood-database.com/wood-artic ... -hardness/

The lowest rated wood I found so far is balsa, at 90 LBf. (Also a hardwood, btw!) Poplar comes in at 540 LBf by comparison. I selected a typical softwood, spruce pine, which comes in with a ratings in the 400-500 LBf range depending on the species, so roughly equivalent to Poplar.

For comparison, a truly hard wood, in both senses of the word, is Lignum Vitae, rating at 4,390 LBf!

Let's see that boy ram a barehanded nail into that stuff!

Another good day at the Pyt! :clap:

Daddy-Long-legs? What the fuck are they? Is it those weird, demented buzzy things with a long head and massive eyes that usually turn up in droves in autumn?

We call those Father-Lengthy-Limbs.

Tony Parsehole wrote:Daddy-Long-legs? What the fuck are they? Is it those weird, demented buzzy things with a long head and massive eyes that usually turn up in droves in autumn?

We call those Father-Lengthy-Limbs.

Oh, you mean him:

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/ori ... 56f266.jpg

Tony Parsehole wrote:Daddy-Long-legs? What the fuck are they? Is it those weird, demented buzzy things with a long head and massive eyes that usually turn up in droves in autumn?

We call those Father-Lengthy-Limbs.

"DADDY long legs?" Yet another example of heteronormative patriarchy.

#everydaymisogyny

TedDahlberg wrote:

Tony Parsehole wrote:Daddy-Long-legs? What the fuck are they? Is it those weird, demented buzzy things with a long head and massive eyes that usually turn up in droves in autumn?

We call those Father-Lengthy-Limbs.

Oh, you mean him:

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/ori ... 56f266.jpg

Is that the SlenderMan?

Zenspace wrote:

Tribble wrote: <snip>

So we get things like balsa wood, classified as a 'hardwood' when it's pretty much the softest and lightest wood commercially harvested. Something one could easly drive a screwdriver through. OTOH, we can get southern yellow pine (softwood) that can get as hard as oak after it's aged and all the pitch in it has hardened. Something that would require great force in order to drive a screwdriver through.

See, it's about the seeds. Not the wood. But, hey, it was a fun game!

Indeed. I've learned several thing about woods in these comments, such as what defines the difference between the hard and soft woods, so thanks for that, Tribble. It stands to reason that there would be a formal system for measuring and grading the physical hardness of woods, and I now know what that is, too: the Janka Hardness rating.

http://www.wood-database.com/wood-artic ... -hardness/

<snip>

Another good day at the Pyt! :clap:

Indeed. But far out – nice to know of all those details, particularly the unit of measurement for hardness, and the procedure for measuring it – embedding a ½” diameter steel ball into the wood to ¼”.

Now all we need is for Welch to write up a requirements specifications document, in triplicate, describing wood hardness, nail types and head diameters, methods of holding said nails, required depths of penetration; have it authorized and notarized by Mudbrooker and company; and then the test can proceed. :popcorn: ;)

Steersman wrote:

Zenspace wrote:

Tribble wrote: <snip>

So we get things like balsa wood, classified as a 'hardwood' when it's pretty much the softest and lightest wood commercially harvested. Something one could easly drive a screwdriver through. OTOH, we can get southern yellow pine (softwood) that can get as hard as oak after it's aged and all the pitch in it has hardened. Something that would require great force in order to drive a screwdriver through.

See, it's about the seeds. Not the wood. But, hey, it was a fun game!

Indeed. I've learned several thing about woods in these comments, such as what defines the difference between the hard and soft woods, so thanks for that, Tribble. It stands to reason that there would be a formal system for measuring and grading the physical hardness of woods, and I now know what that is, too: the Janka Hardness rating.

http://www.wood-database.com/wood-artic ... -hardness/

<snip>

Another good day at the Pyt! :clap:

Indeed. But far out – nice to know of all those details, particularly the unit of measurement for hardness, and the procedure for measuring it – embedding a ½” diameter steel ball into the wood to ¼”.

Now all we need is for Welch to write up a requirements specifications document, in triplicate, describing wood hardness, nail types and head diameters, methods of holding said nails, required depths of penetration; have it authorized and notarized by Mudbrooker and company; and then the test can proceed. :popcorn: ;)

you said 'wood hardness', 'head diameters' and 'penetration.'
ehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe

It seems the blockcunts have bought themselves some followers.

Dan wrote:It seems the blockcunts have bought themselves some followers.

That's EPIC! :lol:

@Steersman,

My response to your post over at Ally Fogg is here:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013 ... mment-9199

Dan wrote:It seems the blockcunts have bought themselves some followers.

Whoa! I had looked at it earlier today and it had indeed gained a ridiculous amount of followers in a ridiculously short time...

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... a0fbf1.jpg

I didn't even know you could "buy" twitter followers... Oolon has disgraced himself yet again.

bell-end is pimping block-bot?
has he no shame?

I just went to the block bot account and it's at 43,368 followers. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oddly enough, all Oolon's tweets are gone, replaced with "@The_Block_Bot hasn't tweeted yet."

Does that mean anything?

TheMudbrooker wrote:

welch wrote:

TheMudbrooker wrote:
What do I aim to prove? That Welch, kung fu master and expert in all things, has no idea how this trick actually works. Yes, there is skill involved but for all your bloviating on the subject, it's clear you have no idea what that skill is.

Nor have I claimed I have that knowledge. I think, based on the video, that the speed/velocity the nail hits the board with is very important, but angle and direction would also seem to have an effect on things. Given that I've not tried this specific trick, I freely admit that I do not in fact have all the details of how this trick works. I can make some reasonable guesses on it, but that's all they would be.

However, given that you yourself don't appear to know the exact setup and method the dude in the video uses, you cannot reliably replicate his trick either. You can create the same end effect, but you have no way to prove you did it exactly the same way, based on just that video. So even if you get the same end result, you can't prove what you want us to think you'll prove.

In any event beavis, you just made the point i've been making, which is that even a simply carnie trick requires some skill and practice to pull off successfully.

Thanks for playing, dumbass.

Let me see if I have this straight, since you, kung fu master and expert in all things, are ignorant of the methods by which this trick is performed I must therefore also be ignorant? On what do you base your claim that I don't know the setup for this trick? And this is my favorite part, even if I replicate the trick it won't count because...I don't have the same tattoos...I'm not standing in someone's yard in the Ukraine...I'm not speaking the same language?

Fuck me, what some people won't do to weasel out of being proven wrong. Even if I posted the video within the next sixty seconds you'll claim that I used the last few hours practicing the art of bare-handed nail driving and say that disqualifies me.

No you fucking twat, I don't know if you have any experience doing it or not. You're the one making that claim. I said shit like that, even if it's a carnie trick is still not easy to do.

if you're going to claim you can perfectly replicate the EXACT SAME TRICK the guy in the video did, then you need to provide evidence such as:

You know for a fact exactly what kind of wood the plank is, and if it's not just cut ala normal planks exactly how it's put together.
You know for a fact exactly how he does the trick, even though, as far as we can tell, you have the exact same source we do. If you have better sources, by all means, name them.

Oh, and while you're at it, *prove* beyond all reasonable doubt that what happens in the video is in fact, a carnie trick or similar. I would love to see the ironclad evidence of even that.

Doing a similar trick with the same end result is not the same as doing EXACTLY what he did, in the same way that two different ways of building a canoe, even though the end canoes are nigh-identical, are not the same ways of building the fucking things.

By all means post the video, and even post extra clips of how you set the trick up, and how it relates to the original video. It'll be kind of cool to see. But I still fail to see how this "humiliates" me in any way shape or form, because it's not disproving anything I've said.

Gumby wrote:I just went to the block bot account and it's at 43,368 followers. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oddly enough, all Oolon's tweets are gone, replaced with "@The_Block_Bot hasn't tweeted yet."

Does that mean anything?

Yes, it means that colon's integrity and credibility just went below negative infinity. What an embezzle! What an ultra-maroon!

Gumby wrote:

TheMudbrooker wrote: Let me see if I have this straight, since you, kung fu master and expert in all things, are ignorant of the methods by which this trick is performed I must therefore also be ignorant? On what do you base your claim that I don't know the setup for this trick? And this is my favorite part, even if I replicate the trick it won't count because...I don't have the same tattoos...I'm not standing in someone's yard in the Ukraine...I'm not speaking the same language?

Fuck me, what some people won't do to weasel out of being proven wrong. Even if I posted the video within the next sixty seconds you'll claim that I used the last few hours practicing the art of bare-handed nail driving and say that disqualifies me.

Welch might not be a kung fu master and expert in all things, but he sure as hell knows how to rile people up :popcorn:

In this case, it's some pretty fucking zen master shit, because I'll be damned if I can figure out what he's so mad about. Unless it's the "beavis" thing. If it's that, well, okay. But in terms of the video, I don't think i've said anything all that controversial.

Nerd of Redhead continues to push the "men who disagree with us are creeps and rapists" line. And PZ Meyers continues to allow him.

http://i.imgur.com/bW56Zbg.png

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-691602


Also, Caine continues to show her latent psychiatric pathology:

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

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-691650

Aneris wrote: [Post #9677]

Tribble wrote: <snip>
However, PoMo, like a metastasized tumor, it didn't stay there. It spread its rejection of facts, objectivity and reality to other disciplines. Disciplines that do not need it or welcome it. In fact, it went all through science and by the 1990s had caused no small amount of drama: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars . Myers is trying to sanitize PoMo (like he sanitizes the A+ movement) and revisit something that was rejected by the betters in his (former) field decades ago.

I also don't really get what PoMo is supposed to add. There is semiotics, linguistics, cognitive science and potentially more fields that all already go a step beyond “things are the way they are”. It is a trivial idea by now that we can't escape cognition or culture, and that it operates with symbols that are constructed in some way. And that they are not real in the same sense as “stuff out there” is real.

<snip>

.... Yes, things are more fuzzy than many people commonly believe, but not in such a way that going crazy and all relativist is justified.

For some people the relative shakiness that is introduced through “sorta” operators and defintions (and continuums) seems to be enough to freak them out. It's like they felt secure in thinking that everything was crystal clear and once they hear about these things, they like to throw out the baby with the bathwater. So my take is that the foothill of the mountains might be fuzzy (using that as a representation of the ideas), you still have the huge mountain everyone sees in pretty much the same way, from Tasmania to Alaska, in biblical times or today.

//oops for the wall of text. :)

Interesting post, much of which I agree with, at least to the extent I am even moderately familiar with what you’re talking about. ;-) And as was the Wikipedia article on the Science Wars Tribble referenced. However, while I don’t want to make more out of this than is justified as it seems only an interesting conjecture at best, I think this point of yours bears some questioning:

Aneris wrote:So my take is that the foothill of the mountains might be fuzzy (using that as a representation of the ideas), you still have the huge mountain everyone sees in pretty much the same way, from Tasmania to Alaska, in biblical times or today.

But the sticky wicket there seems to be the question of just how “badly” or erroneously the operation of the hardware – the common element in the cases you described – influences and masks what is “really there”. Which is, I think, maybe what the more sane po-mo aficionados are getting at. All of which reminds me of something from the popular, if highly questionable, documentary “What the Bleep Do We Know”.

While I don’t recollect all of the details, the documentary described some study in which the participants were fitted with some goggles which used some prisms and mirrors to invert the scene presented to the eyes. Initially the participants apparently stumbled about for awhile because their worlds appeared “upside-down”, but somehow the brain eventually compensated – “rewired itself” – so as to make it appear “right-side-up” and their mobility was restored. Seems from that what we have are more or less accurate models that are more or less in phase with some level of reality, but which suggests “reality” is somewhat subjective at best or maybe simply unknowable to the n-th degree. [Someone said that “reality” is a word that should always be used in quotes to suggest that limitation.]

I tend to think of the situation comprised of models to reality, and reality itself as being analogous to “bucky balls”, a self-sustaining structure: the model may map to reality along most points, but there may be many other points – even within the “normal” range of temperatures, pressures, and object sizes – where the model simply isn’t going to cut it. Bit of a question, I think, how we could determine if that is the case or not – kind of like trying to peek behind the curtains, behind the smoke and the mirrors. Those cases may not be of much relevance in most circumstances, but it could also the case that the consequences, if they exist, could be rather far reaching.

Guestus Aurelius wrote:

JackRayner wrote:

Lsuoma wrote: Opiliones.

Pholcidae :whistle:

Tipulidae :dance:

Phoquers 8-)

Gumby wrote:I just went to the block bot account and it's at 43,368 followers. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oddly enough, all Oolon's tweets are gone, replaced with "@The_Block_Bot hasn't tweeted yet."

Does that mean anything?

I think it means you have them blocked. :D

Steersman wrote:

Zenspace wrote:

Tribble wrote: <snip>

So we get things like balsa wood, classified as a 'hardwood' when it's pretty much the softest and lightest wood commercially harvested. Something one could easly drive a screwdriver through. OTOH, we can get southern yellow pine (softwood) that can get as hard as oak after it's aged and all the pitch in it has hardened. Something that would require great force in order to drive a screwdriver through.

See, it's about the seeds. Not the wood. But, hey, it was a fun game!

Indeed. I've learned several thing about woods in these comments, such as what defines the difference between the hard and soft woods, so thanks for that, Tribble. It stands to reason that there would be a formal system for measuring and grading the physical hardness of woods, and I now know what that is, too: the Janka Hardness rating.

http://www.wood-database.com/wood-artic ... -hardness/

<snip>

Another good day at the Pyt! :clap:

Indeed. But far out – nice to know of all those details, particularly the unit of measurement for hardness, and the procedure for measuring it – embedding a ½” diameter steel ball into the wood to ¼”.

Now all we need is for Welch to write up a requirements specifications document, in triplicate, describing wood hardness, nail types and head diameters, methods of holding said nails, required depths of penetration; have it authorized and notarized by Mudbrooker and company; and then the test can proceed. :popcorn: ;)

You said "ball"

heheheheheheheeh

Dan wrote:It seems the blockcunts have bought themselves some followers.

BAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Gumby wrote:I just went to the block bot account and it's at 43,368 followers. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oddly enough, all Oolon's tweets are gone, replaced with "@The_Block_Bot hasn't tweeted yet."

Does that mean anything?

AHHHAHAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAA! This is too funny!
BTW It means you have them blocked or they blocked you.
Anyway......AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!

welch wrote:

Dan wrote:It seems the blockcunts have bought themselves some followers.

BAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

X50000+"This, so much this"= Schadenfreude.

OMG! And to think, just this week, the little cunt was having a dig at Al Stefanelli for faking his Twitter followers. What a fucking absolute loser. My god but no matter how low a person falls they can always look on Oolon's life and laugh until they choke.

Thank you Oolon. Whoever you are!*

*James Billingham

Sent a fellow that seems to enjoy wasting his time arguing with ooblong and aratina cage on twatter that Gurdur tweet and he replied with the following:
Personally, I believe ooblong is fully capable and willing to stoop this low, and also lie about it, but what do y'all think?

:popcorn:

Steersman wrote:

Zenspace wrote:

Tribble wrote: <snip>

So we get things like balsa wood, classified as a 'hardwood' when it's pretty much the softest and lightest wood commercially harvested. Something one could easly drive a screwdriver through. OTOH, we can get southern yellow pine (softwood) that can get as hard as oak after it's aged and all the pitch in it has hardened. Something that would require great force in order to drive a screwdriver through.

See, it's about the seeds. Not the wood. But, hey, it was a fun game!

Indeed. I've learned several thing about woods in these comments, such as what defines the difference between the hard and soft woods, so thanks for that, Tribble. It stands to reason that there would be a formal system for measuring and grading the physical hardness of woods, and I now know what that is, too: the Janka Hardness rating.

http://www.wood-database.com/wood-artic ... -hardness/

<snip>

Another good day at the Pyt! :clap:

Indeed. But far out – nice to know of all those details, particularly the unit of measurement for hardness, and the procedure for measuring it – embedding a ½” diameter steel ball into the wood to ¼”.

Now all we need is for Welch to write up a requirements specifications document, in triplicate, describing wood hardness, nail types and head diameters, methods of holding said nails, required depths of penetration; have it authorized and notarized by Mudbrooker and company; and then the test can proceed. :popcorn: ;)

...

I. Miss. You...

Cunt.

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

Dan wrote:It seems the blockcunts have bought themselves some followers.

Oh good job!

I knew there was a reason I stopped eating and drinking while perusing Ye Olde Slymepit. Otherwise right about now the keyboard would have been drenched in a solution of tea forcibly expelled through the nostrils of the party of the first part.

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:Nerd of Redhead continues to push the "men who disagree with us are creeps and rapists" line. And PZ Meyers continues to allow him.

http://i.imgur.com/bW56Zbg.png

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-691602


Also, Caine continues to show her latent psychiatric pathology:

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

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-691650

That's not weird at all. I go to sleep with a giant, 3D Myra Hindley poster on my bedroom wall, which I masturbate to religiously. If I don't cum within 2 minutes I stamp on a hamster. Never had a bad nights sleep yet.

AndrewV69 wrote:@Steersman,

My response to your post over at Ally Fogg is here:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013 ... mment-9199

Thanks – will probably post a response there later on. And also for the link to Agustin’s website which looks interesting and will be worth looking into in some detail. That trafficking issue looks to be a rather thorny one with more than a few things to be said on each side – don’t know if you’ve seen the documentaries by the Canadian Victor Malarek but his The Natashas - Inside The Global Sex Trade was disturbing to say the least.

JackRayner wrote:Sent a fellow that seems to enjoy wasting his time arguing with ooblong and aratina cage on twatter that Gurdur tweet and he replied with the following:

Personally, I believe ooblong is fully capable and willing to stoop this low, and also lie about it, but what do y'all think?

:popcorn:

The fact that you ask gives the brain-dead cabbage too much credit. Oolon would wipe dog-shit on his face if you told him it would pass for a suntan.

JackRayner wrote:Sent a fellow that seems to enjoy wasting his time arguing with ooblong and aratina cage on twatter that Gurdur tweet and he replied with the following:

[.tweet][/tweet]

Personally, I believe ooblong is fully capable and willing to stoop this low, and also lie about it, but what do y'all think?

:popcorn:

Oolon is the sneakiest shit on the internet. How this LazySavant person can "know for a fact" that Oozie couldn't have possibly done that is beyond me. That kind of scuzzy behavior is right up his alley.

welch wrote:

Guestus Aurelius wrote:

JackRayner wrote: Pholcidae :whistle:

Tipulidae :dance:

Phoquers 8-)

Draemius Pleasantae

Gumby wrote:

JackRayner wrote:Sent a fellow that seems to enjoy wasting his time arguing with ooblong and aratina cage on twatter that Gurdur tweet and he replied with the following:

[.tweet][/tweet]

Personally, I believe ooblong is fully capable and willing to stoop this low, and also lie about it, but what do y'all think?

:popcorn:

Oolon is the sneakiest shit on the internet. How this LazySavant person can "know for a fact" that Oozie couldn't have possibly done that is beyond me. That kind of scuzzy behavior is right up his alley.

Reminds me of Absurd Walls professing to "know" that Oolon was a good father in real life from observing his obsessive online trolling and bullshit.
Oolon is a cunt in real life and on the internet and you don't need secret camera network in his house to know that.

Tony Parsehole wrote:

JackRayner wrote:Sent a fellow that seems to enjoy wasting his time arguing with ooblong and aratina cage on twatter that Gurdur tweet and he replied with the following:

Personally, I believe ooblong is fully capable and willing to stoop this low, and also lie about it, but what do y'all think?

:popcorn:

The fact that you ask gives the brain-dead cabbage too much credit. Oolon would wipe dog-shit on his face if you told him it would pass for a suntan.

Ye of little faith. :naughty:

Gumby wrote:
Oolon is the sneakiest shit on the internet. How this LazySavant person can "know for a fact" that Oozie couldn't have possibly done that is beyond me. That kind of scuzzy behavior is right up his alley.

They're very twatter centric, so I don't think they're aware of the internet-wide shit smearing that ooblong does on a regular basis, both presently or historically.

Gumby wrote:

Dan wrote:It seems the blockcunts have bought themselves some followers.

Whoa! I had looked at it earlier today and it had indeed gained a ridiculous amount of followers in a ridiculously short time...

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... a0fbf1.jpg

I didn't even know you could "buy" twitter followers... Oolon has disgraced himself yet again.

He's saying he doesn't know how it happened: