Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...

[Jan Steen]

So you say, I am yet to be convinced either way.... maybe she is in the right, I don't know yet, it's all guesswork

What do you find still uncertain? I'm confident that Stollznow:
* On at least two occasions, made baseless charges of sexual harassment involving employers she was angry at for other reasons;
* Made false accusations against at least two men she was romantically involved with;
* Perpetrated emotional & physical domestic abuse, yet attempts destroy someone over far lesser (or possibly non-existent) acts, which she labels "abuse";
* Willfully falsified dates of events;
* Made a public accusation of felonious activity, when any reasonable person would know that the acts she had in mind do not meet the legal definitions of the felonies Sexual Harassment or Sexual Assault.

I'm with Matt on this. The evidence is now overwhelming that Stollznow largely or entirely made up her story as originally published on the Scientific American site.

Being a sceptic does not only mean that you always question the evidence, it also means that you follow the evidence when it is convincing enough. You can not permanently suspend judgement until mathematical certainty is established.

This is what Stollznow originally asserted:

“I’m Sick of Talking about Sexual Harassment!”
By Karen Stollznow | August 6, 2013 |

“I was sexually harassed for four years,” I admitted to a colleague recently… Those who didn’t know the extent of the harassment reacted as though we simply don’t play well together in the sandbox. “Why don’t you two just get over it and move on!” The matter was misconstrued as a lover’s tiff, or that we were a couple in an on again, off again relationship… This man is a predator who collects girls of a certain “type”. His targets are chubby, shy, lonely, and insecure, just like I used to be. In the early days I looked up to him and was flattered that he seemed to respect my work. I quickly spotted some red flags but I disregarded them. These became too big to ignore, so I called it all off. The rejection was ego shattering to him at first, and then met with disbelief. This was followed by incessant communication of a sexual nature, including gifts, calls, emails, letters, postcards, and invites to vacation with him in exotic places so we could “get to know each other again”. He wouldn’t leave me alone. This wasn’t love. It was obsession. His desperation only increased when I met another man. He continued his harassment as though my boyfriend (who is now my husband) didn’t even exist. From late 2009 onwards I made repeated requests for his personal communication to cease but these were ignored. He began manipulating the boundaries by contacting me on the pretext of it being work-related. Then, he saw me at conferences and took every opportunity to place me in a vulnerable position. This is where the psychological abuse turned physical and he sexually assaulted me on several occasions.”

The evidence provided by Radford really reduces this heart-wrenching tale to a malicious pack of lies. There is something very wrong with Karen Stollznow.

The denialist, always-believe-the-victim SJWs have almost no alternative left but to make up Truther-like theories about impossibly complex levels of deception perpetrated by the evil genius Blofeld Radford. Their only other option is to maintain that even though Radford may have been innocent with respect to these specific accusations, he is still a horrible person, so that in the end he deserves everything he gets. Meanwhile, Sister Stollznow will be quietly moved out of the limelight and be forgiven for making gullible SJWs fraudulently part with their money for a lost cause. Because even a lost SJ cause is still a good cause.

Radford may not be a nice guy, Stollznow may be a bordeline psycho, but the worst characters in this sad Punch and Judy show are Carrie Poppy and PZ Myers, who trive on lies, character assassination and faux outrage. They are the lowest of the lowest scum in the a/s community. They are the ones who should be boycotted into oblivion.

[feralandproud]

Damion Reinhardt ‏@D4M10N Protected Tweets 2m
@Aneris23 Would you agree that some revelations are okay to publish (e.g. personal anecdote) and others not okay to publish (e.g. doxxing)?

Seems as though Mr. Superiority is setting up yet another epic GOTCHA! moment.

[Clarence]

Then there's Zvan and the debacle over her post regarding Christie whatshername and that guy, whatshisname; her selective moderation to manipulate the message (at least that presented by undesirable commenters); her doxxing; and I forget what other illustrious moves on her part but there have been a few

This weekend she's moderating a panel at Skeptech, subtitled "Do read the comments: creating a constructive online community", which includes (among others) Miri . It's clearly aimed at bloggers, not commentres; "do read the comments" means reading them before letting them see the light of day.

...Anyone interested in attending might wish to check which dimension he/she is in, not only for the head-spinning assumption that Zvan knows anything about "robust and nuanced discussion" much less "creating a constructive online community". Even, perhaps, check which time zone you're in, as her panel discussion is listed as being in 3 different slots. Minor thing, but amusing:

It might be (from the skeptech schedule) on Saturday at 5:30pm, or
it might be (from the google calendar linked to the event entry in the schedule above) on Saturday at 6:30pm, or
It might be (as Zvan says in a post on her blog) on "Sunday at 11am" (even though, amusingly, in that phrase she links to the skeptech schedule showing it on Saturday at 5:30pm).

I laughed and laughed. This is amazing! Maybe she'll do three panels! Maybe there's three different panels in 3 different universes! And the VERY THOUGHT that she knows anything about 'robust discussion'!?!!!!

:lol: :o :lol: :dance: :clap:

[Clarence]

I kind of wonder whether the guy in Gumby's story had congenital insensitivity to pain, due to a mutation in a nerve growth factor receptor. Kids with the disorder bite off pieces of their own tongue, burn and cut their fingers, etc. and don't cry when they're being stitched up in the ER.

We'll never know, but I remember the whole thing quite clearly, and while he wasn't rapidly gobbling it down like popcorn, he didn't act like he was in any real pain. I mean, both of them were pretty drunk, but come on, I would think one would have to be drunk almost to the point of unconsciousness to do what he did and not feel pain.

In any case, I'm glad my anecdote is grossing y'all out :D

Actually, your anecdote is disturbing and sad. What a fucking pointless waste of a human life, and what a horrible way to die.
I also don't envy you having to see that, esp as a very young man (almost boy).

But your life is your life , and maybe some good came out of it after all. I'm sure you would never act so stupidly with alcohol.

[Gefan]

Thunderdome! Two men enter, one man leaves is banned!

Nope.

"Thunderdome! Two men enter..."Raaaaaaaaaaape!!!".

You're welcome.

[Skep tickle]

This pic and the one from last night make me think that they're just ignoring the fact most people think they're a bunch of cunts. It's funny in a way, because they've effectively poisoned their own movement with their bullshit. Equal rights for everyone, cool. Women are oppressed? Nah, everyone's oppressed. White privilege? Yup, I'm just gonna fuck off and watch y'all eat yourselves.

I missed the pic last night, or was that the one in the restaurant/lounge/bar/whatever it was?

This one is Sat AM, maybe a bunch of attendees are just hung over from Friday night, or members of that tribe of much-maligned night owls, or otherwise still sleeping?

*checks schedule* Ah, the first event on Saturday was at 10:00am. Not so early. Hmm.

[katamari Damassi]

Ah, scorpions. My wife twice went as medical officer on scorpion collecting expeditions (in the Sinai and the Negev) and brought back hundreds of the critters. I got a call when she got back to rush across London and do something for the expedition leader who had been stung by one of their captives. Not knowing any better I put a ring block in his finger so at least it didn't hurt; these days I'd give him an antihistamine and some ice. She became quite enamoured of the little creatures, and the solifugae they caught as well (really ugly beasts - see here) and ended up keeping an emperor scorpion as a pet. The silly thing was that she felt it would compromise her vegetarian principles to feed it, so I had to go and buy a bags of live cricket (pet shops keep them for snakes) to feed it once a week. You could hear the crunching of the chitin as he chowed down. Fortunately he/she drowned in the water dish before getting hand-sized. A sting from it fully grown would be, well, outrageous. :bjarte:

:shock:

Fortunately the bark scorpions aren't particularly venomous, though their sting does hurt briefly. My brother-in-law likened stepping on one barefoot to stepping on a piece of glass, and I think that's a pretty fair description. Whereas a bite from a brown recluse spider will be less painful initially, but cause many more problems for a prolonged period.

I had a lab mate who kept a large black widow spider in a glass jar (in a drawer in her lab bench) as a pet. OK, I had a rough-skinned newt Taricha granulosa in an aquarium on my desk, but you'd have to have eaten it, for it to be dangerous.

I've gotten scorpions on me while working in my tree nursery. They're so light you can't even feel them on you. I've never been stung but am told it's no worse than a bee sting.

[Guestus Aurelius]

Re: the whole Eich / Prop 8 business...

Mixed feelings. Given the industry they're in, both Mozilla and Eich should have seen it coming. And people have a right to boycott based on principles they hold dear. Mozilla had no choice but to cave.

On the other hand, there are many people in high places who supported Prop 8 and are against marriage equality. I imagine that nearly 100% of the people calling for Eich's head voted for Obama in 2008, and Obama was anti–marriage equality at the time (if not personally then politically, which is, frankly, the only thing that matters). One guy donating $1,000 to the "cause" is a lot less influential than the Democratic presidential candidate supporting it, and I don't recall the boycotters swarming to third-party candidates or calling for Obama's impeachment. (Granted, there were other factors to consider, but that's kind of the point: when the boycotters think that the other factors will affect them personally, they don't regard this single issue as a litmus test, but when they think that the other factors personally affect only other people, they do. Fair enough, I suppose. I probably do the same thing.)

I find Eich's views on gay marriage misguided and repugnant, and I support the right of people to boycott. What I'm having trouble with is: why just Eich and Mozilla? (Okay, there was Chick-fil-A, too.)

Again, with any foresight Mozilla wouldn't have made Eich CEO in the first place. Dumb move.

As an aside, I'm amused that you almost never hear the SJL acknowledge that black America is overwhelmingly against gay marriage. There's some cognitive dissonance at work there, because on the one hand, sacrosanct human rights, and on the other, sacrosanct cultural values of an oppressed minority. During the whole Prop 8 thing, the progressives were lambasting the Mormons in Utah for getting involved, but black citizens outnumber Mormon citizens in California by a considerable margin (currently about 6.5% to 2%, presumably with very little overlap).

[Skep tickle]

You've seen Zimmerman on Bizarre Foods?
Yesterday or the day before (I lose track of time a little, because I'm a nyghtkin), he was eating tarantulas.
:bjarte:
It was horrible to watch but I couldn't look away.

I couldn't stop thinking about Gumby's horrific bar fight story, from an anatomist's point of view. There are all sorts of places in the oral cavity, throat, and neck at which glass shards could damage major branches of the external carotid artery, or poke through relatively thin layers to emerge on the external neck. Even if the guy managed to survive the blood loss, I'd think he would have damaged several important nerves in the face, tongue, and throat.

It all makes sense if you think of the neck as a poorly-designed conduit for several types of plumbing, A/C, and electric/fiber optics cables.

Unfortunately the story is far too grotesque and extreme to use as a clinical vignette for an exam question.

A case of a sword swallower having a bad day (or one with a tremor or other movement disorder) could work...

...unless your students read the Slymepit, that is :D

[Dick Strawkins]

Has Sally Strange mentioned this before?

http://i.imgur.com/L5ZdY4S.jpg

[Gumby]

I kind of wonder whether the guy in Gumby's story had congenital insensitivity to pain, due to a mutation in a nerve growth factor receptor. Kids with the disorder bite off pieces of their own tongue, burn and cut their fingers, etc. and don't cry when they're being stitched up in the ER.

We'll never know, but I remember the whole thing quite clearly, and while he wasn't rapidly gobbling it down like popcorn, he didn't act like he was in any real pain. I mean, both of them were pretty drunk, but come on, I would think one would have to be drunk almost to the point of unconsciousness to do what he did and not feel pain.

In any case, I'm glad my anecdote is grossing y'all out :D

Actually, your anecdote is disturbing and sad. What a fucking pointless waste of a human life, and what a horrible way to die.
I also don't envy you having to see that, esp as a very young man (almost boy).

But your life is your life , and maybe some good came out of it after all. I'm sure you would never act so stupidly with alcohol.

Well, I don't drink. Anymore. 10 year sobriety anniversary is June 15. However, I freely admit doing many stupid things under the influence, some of which still affect my life to this day. I would imagine it's rather difficult to be a falling-down drunk like I was for 20 years and not have any long-term effects on your life. I still don't think I've ever been drunk (or reckless, or foolhardy) enough to ever consider doing something like that. For most people, there's always that little part of you that remains sober enough to say "Hey, that's just nuts". I guess that guy in the bar didn't have that little sober voice.

But (I might be mistaken here) if you're implying that maybe some good came out of it because what I saw maybe had the effect of making me a bit more cautious with the booze, well, I didn't roll that way. I spent my childhood watching my mother ruin her life (and my childhood) with alcohol, and as a child I swore with 100% conviction that I would never drink. Well, I sincerely wished I had followed Child Gumby's advice. However, even if I hadn't witnessed that guy doing what he did, I still very much doubt I would have thought eating a bar glass was a good idea.

[Skep tickle]

pulchritudinous

:text-bravo:

:)

I like stuff that make the reader/listener stop & think.

This word looks & sounds (to me at least) like it should be insulting...therefore, mental double-take, woo hoo!

[Skep tickle]

Has Sally Strange mentioned this before?

http://i.imgur.com/L5ZdY4S.jpg

Yes, I'm pretty sure, but I couldn't tell you where. (Presumably some prior reassuring, I'm-with-you-dude, interaction w/ Ogvorbis, of which there have been many.)

[welch]

Hey um, there's a few people I haven't seen at the pit recently. Hope all is well to the Kitty overlord.

I am even left wondering where John Calhoun is. He last posted 10 days ago.

I was busy. Macworld and work.

You didn't miss anything

Lol...that's a given. It's why I like this place.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Has Sally Strange mentioned this before?

http://i.imgur.com/L5ZdY4S.jpg

Not a question anyone would expect from Strawkins' fingers, so I assume it is rhetorical.

Just in case you're serious: yes, once or twice.

[welch]

Hey um, there's a few people I haven't seen at the pit recently. Hope all is well to the Kitty overlord.

I am even left wondering where John Calhoun is. He last posted 10 days ago.

I was busy. Macworld and work.

Too busy for us?

:evil:

Do you really want me to answer that? :-P

[Dick Strawkins]

Has Sally Strange mentioned this before?

http://i.imgur.com/L5ZdY4S.jpg

Yes, I'm pretty sure, but I couldn't tell you where. (Presumably some prior reassuring, I'm-with-you-dude, interaction w/ Ogvorbis, of which there have been many.)

I personally wouldn't call what she describes as sexual assault - not unless you are also prepared to label the lind of 'chase and kiss' games that many kids play as sexual assault too.
This incessant need by SJWs to label so many actions that fall inside the normal range of human activities as sexual assault or rape, devalues genuine incidences of sexual assault - like the child rape claimed by Ogvorbis.

[Sulman]

A quick glance at the #skepcheck hashtag is fascinating. Tell me that is not a cult.

[Really?]

LOL

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/3 ... 3,200_.jpg

[welch]

I've had to stop drinking. Not because of alcoholism or similar. About two years ago, alcohol, in any form, and damned near any quantity, gave me evil heartburn. Like the "sleep sitting up" kind.

So it's either prilosec or stop drinking. Given that I was never much of a drinker, stopping wasn't really difficult. Plus, it makes parties a lot more fun. Like walking with some friends back from a party to Dave's, and one is so drunk, I'm having to keep her from staggering out into streets.

She's really not thrilled with my new nickname for her: "Little Drunky".

[Guestus Aurelius]

So you say, I am yet to be convinced either way.... maybe she is in the right, I don't know yet, it's all guesswork

What do you find still uncertain? I'm confident that Stollznow:
* On at least two occasions, made baseless charges of sexual harassment involving employers she was angry at for other reasons;
* Made false accusations against at least two men she was romantically involved with;
* Perpetrated emotional & physical domestic abuse, yet attempts destroy someone over far lesser (or possibly non-existent) acts, which she labels "abuse";
* Willfully falsified dates of events;
* Made a public accusation of felonious activity, when any reasonable person would know that the acts she had in mind do not meet the legal definitions of the felonies Sexual Harassment or Sexual Assault.

I'm with Matt on this. The evidence is now overwhelming that Stollznow largely or entirely made up her story as originally published on the Scientific American site.

Being a sceptic does not only mean that you always question the evidence, it also means that you follow the evidence when it is convincing enough. You can not permanently suspend judgement until mathematical certainty is established.

This is what Stollznow originally asserted:

“I’m Sick of Talking about Sexual Harassment!”
By Karen Stollznow | August 6, 2013 |

“I was sexually harassed for four years,” I admitted to a colleague recently… Those who didn’t know the extent of the harassment reacted as though we simply don’t play well together in the sandbox. “Why don’t you two just get over it and move on!” The matter was misconstrued as a lover’s tiff, or that we were a couple in an on again, off again relationship… This man is a predator who collects girls of a certain “type”. His targets are chubby, shy, lonely, and insecure, just like I used to be. In the early days I looked up to him and was flattered that he seemed to respect my work. I quickly spotted some red flags but I disregarded them. These became too big to ignore, so I called it all off. The rejection was ego shattering to him at first, and then met with disbelief. This was followed by incessant communication of a sexual nature, including gifts, calls, emails, letters, postcards, and invites to vacation with him in exotic places so we could “get to know each other again”. He wouldn’t leave me alone. This wasn’t love. It was obsession. His desperation only increased when I met another man. He continued his harassment as though my boyfriend (who is now my husband) didn’t even exist. From late 2009 onwards I made repeated requests for his personal communication to cease but these were ignored. He began manipulating the boundaries by contacting me on the pretext of it being work-related. Then, he saw me at conferences and took every opportunity to place me in a vulnerable position. This is where the psychological abuse turned physical and he sexually assaulted me on several occasions.”

The evidence provided by Radford really reduces this heart-wrenching tale to a malicious pack of lies. There is something very wrong with Karen Stollznow.

The denialist, always-believe-the-victim SJWs have almost no alternative left but to make up Truther-like theories about impossibly complex levels of deception perpetrated by the evil genius Blofeld Radford. Their only other option is to maintain that even though Radford may have been innocent with respect to these specific accusations, he is still a horrible person, so that in the end he deserves everything he gets. Meanwhile, Sister Stollznow will be quietly moved out of the limelight and be forgiven for making gullible SJWs fraudulently part with their money for a lost cause. Because even a lost SJ cause is still a good cause.

Radford may not be a nice guy, Stollznow may be a bordeline psycho, but the worst characters in this sad Punch and Judy show are Carrie Poppy and PZ Myers, who trive on lies, character assassination and faux outrage. They are the lowest of the lowest scum in the a/s community. They are the ones who should be boycotted into oblivion.

Hear! hear!

Oh, and a quick PSA: traditionally it's heart-rending (unhyphenated in some dictionaries) and gut-wrenching (hyphenated in all dictionaries); heart-wrenching is a recent and probably irreversible bastardization. It rends my heart.

[Guestus Aurelius]

(I'm a douche.)

[Gumby]

(I'm a douche.)

Your honest confession is heart-wrenching.

[Guestus Aurelius]

(I'm a douche.)

Your honest confession is heart-wrenching.

I suppose that's better than throat-perforating.

[Jan Steen]

Oh, and a quick PSA: traditionally it's heart-rending (unhyphenated in some dictionaries) and gut-wrenching (hyphenated in all dictionaries); heart-wrenching is a recent and probably irreversible bastardization. It rends my heart.

A valid criticism that I will take to heart even though it completely gutted me. Thanks.

(I considered heart-rending, but thought heart-wrenching sounded more melodramatic.)

[katamari Damassi]

I personally wouldn't call what she describes as sexual assault - not unless you are also prepared to label the lind of 'chase and kiss' games that many kids play as sexual assault too.
This incessant need by SJWs to label so many actions that fall inside the normal range of human activities as sexual assault or rape, devalues genuine incidences of sexual assault - like the child rape claimed by Ogvorbis.

It IS sexual assault! And cooties are kiddie STI's.

[Mykeru]

Wait a minute...has anyone speculated as to why Radford apparently fucks with his glasses on? I don't wear glasses yet. Is that normal?

Do you think Clark Kent takes his glasses off when fucking Lois Lane?

He's not fucking. He's taking a picture. Either way, I suspect you guys are doing both wrong.

[codelette]

I'm just gonna leave this here:

Surprising New Facts About Sexual Harassment
NOV 8, 2011 03:39 PM ET // BY BENJAMIN RADFORD
http://news.discovery.com/human/psychol ... 111108.htm

lol

[Jan Steen]

Then there's Zvan and the debacle over her post regarding Christie whatshername and that guy, whatshisname; her selective moderation to manipulate the message (at least that presented by undesirable commenters); her doxxing; and I forget what other illustrious moves on her part but there have been a few

This weekend she's moderating a panel at Skeptech, subtitled "Do read the comments: creating a constructive online community", which includes (among others) Miri . It's clearly aimed at bloggers, not commentres; "do read the comments" means reading them before letting them see the light of day. The blurb says:

How to we go beyond the trolls in our online spaces? Preventing malicious comments is fine, but the goal of many online communities is to exhibit robust and nuanced discussion in the comments. How do we reach this goal? What are the effective techniques used? What is the role of moderation, whether used too little, too much, or just used badly?

Anyone interested in attending might wish to check which dimension he/she is in, not only for the head-spinning assumption that Zvan knows anything about "robust and nuanced discussion" much less "creating a constructive online community". Even, perhaps, check which time zone you're in, as her panel discussion is listed as being in 3 different slots. Minor thing, but amusing:

It might be (from the skeptech schedule) on Saturday at 5:30pm, or
it might be (from the google calendar linked to the event entry in the schedule above) on Saturday at 6:30pm, or
It might be (as Zvan says in a post on her blog) on "Sunday at 11am" (even though, amusingly, in that phrase she links to the skeptech schedule showing it on Saturday at 5:30pm).

Zvan is an expert in creating a constructive online community in the same way that Pol Pot and Pinochet were experts on human rights issues. This is a blogger whose Orwellian dishonesty and atrocious writing style have reduced the number of comments on most of her brain farts to single digits. Consider the number of comments on her last 10 posts: 9 - 1 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 4 - 8 - 1 - 0. Even the SJWs, who must be unusually tolerant to dogmatic bullshit, find her stuff indigestible. Skeptech couldn't have conceived of a better demonstration of the worthlessness of conferences like theirs than by inviting the black Zvan to moderate that panel.

[acathode]

This incessant need by SJWs to label so many actions that fall inside the normal range of human activities as sexual assault or rape, devalues genuine incidences of sexual assault - like the child rape claimed by Ogvorbis.

Well... when you're goal is to brag about how good you are who "get it" (or complain about how evil others who "don't get it" are), who gives a shit about victims of real, genuine sexual assault?

[Parody Accountant]

You didn't miss anything

Lol...that's a given. It's why I like this place.

Welch, I'm assuming you saw this from Ben Radford. Otherwise. Yeah.

[John Greg]

paddybrown, said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 93#p174293):

They need negative reinforcement.

Just to be pedantic and all, I am pretty sure you misunderstand what the term negative reifocrcement means. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement

Negative reinforcement occurs when the rate of a behavior increases because an aversive event or stimulus is removed or prevented from happening.

[free thoughtpolice]

Alas, his blog was far more mundane than his current profile would suggest.

http://iambilly.wordpress.com

I'd be interested in Skeptickle's views on PZs anti dox views.

It'd be interesting for someone, with a better memory than me, to have a look to see how this short story about the scouts squares with what he's said at ftb:

http://iambilly.wordpress.com/2009/06/2 ... to-belong/

This episode would have been when he was 12 yr. old, around the time he was the baby-sitter abuser, not the victim.
He was 9 yr. old when the scoutmaster allegedly abused him. That time frame is covered by this post, although there is no mention of it, presumably he hadn't "remembered it" at the time of writing:
http://iambilly.wordpress.com/2010/03/0 ... ild-abuse/

[Søren Lilholt]

Completely OT, but can anyone recommend a good cloud service for backing up my hard drives?

I don't know where to start, to be honest. Thanks.

[James Caruthers]

Has Sally Strange mentioned this before?

http://i.imgur.com/L5ZdY4S.jpg

Yes.

She's a fuckin' loon.

[welch]

You didn't miss anything

Lol...that's a given. It's why I like this place.

Welch, I'm assuming you saw this from Ben Radford. Otherwise. Yeah.

I saw it. Mostly ignored it.

[Mykeru]

This incessant need by SJWs to label so many actions that fall inside the normal range of human activities as sexual assault or rape, devalues genuine incidences of sexual assault - like the child rape claimed by Ogvorbis.

Well... when you're goal is to brag about how good you are who "get it" (or complain about how evil others who "don't get it" are), who gives a shit about victims of real, genuine sexual assault?

They have to talk about sex. Good sex and bad sex, sexual assault, the politics of phallo-centricity and conduct slut walks. They talk about rape and sexual assault and when they are not doing that they are writing long paeans on the fleshy Mother Goddess goodness of their meat flaps. Sex, sex. and more sex plus the hidden email listserv where they trade tips on being that fish without a bicycle by buying kid-ass girl-power vibrators. Then they talk some more about sex, think about sex, make Etsy crafts based entirely around their vaginas. Rape. Penis. Why an automatic car wash demeans women by suggesting Bukkake.

Why do they do it? Because of your sexual obsession, that's why. You degenerate fuck.

[welch]

Completely OT, but can anyone recommend a good cloud service for backing up my hard drives?

I don't know where to start, to be honest. Thanks.

Crashplan is quite good.

[welch]

Has Sally Strange mentioned this before?

http://i.imgur.com/L5ZdY4S.jpg

Yes.

She's a fuckin' loon.

Nah. Just quoting the party line: "It's okay when we do it."

[free thoughtpolice]

I don't know whether Radford is entirely innocent of the charges levied against him but I am leaning toward this:

stollznow's revenge.jpg

(67.11 KiB) Downloaded 228 times

I must be getting slow-banned big time, half of the time I can't even log in and get timed out.

[Mykeru]

Completely OT, but can anyone recommend a good cloud service for backing up my hard drives?

I don't know where to start, to be honest. Thanks.

Crashplan is quite good.

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2009 ... urface.jpg

Exclusive. Hard to get to. Hot chicks. Questionable customer service and they treat their employees like crap.

/geek

[Skep tickle]

Dick Strawkins: freethoughtpolice quoted Sally Strange about her "sexual assault" of her brother 2 months ago, here:
viewtopic.php?p=159849#p159849

("Assault" as much as any other horseplay between kids, IMO. He probably hid something of hers once, is that "theft"? And, is kissing your sibling a sexual thing?)

[katamari Damassi]

Completely OT, but can anyone recommend a good cloud service for backing up my hard drives?

I don't know where to start, to be honest. Thanks.

Crashplan is quite good.

I hate to get all tinfoil hatty, but cloud services make me paranoid. Who has access to my stuff? Will information be sold to marketers? Will I get in trouble for having torrents of shows off of premium cable channels?

[welch]

Completely OT, but can anyone recommend a good cloud service for backing up my hard drives?

I don't know where to start, to be honest. Thanks.

Crashplan is quite good.

[mg]http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2009 ... urface.jpg[/img]

Exclusive. Hard to get to. Hot chicks. Questionable customer service and they treat their employees like crap.

/geek

The customer service has been quite good in my experience. and it runs on pretty much everything.

[Gefan]

A while back someone (I can't be assed to go back and check who) asked how many men on The Pit would consider Stollznow dateable.
Okay, given what I know about her now, my answer is that is, if you pointed a gun at my head and told me to go near her, I'd pull the trigger for you.
Absent that information, if I just saw a picture and read her resume. I'd consider her eligible. She's a "7".
If you needed someone to post a number for me - ask Phil, he's met me in person.
If you look at Radford (aka Uncle Fester) and Baxter (aka Billy Joe Armstrong as Fat Elvis) then you could be excused for concluding there's an obvious explanation for them putting up with her demented shit.
Neither of these guys is that very high up on the food chain.
I don't claim to know what happened in all this, but I think a reasonable theory is that Stollznow is a predator. She seeks out guys who can't believe that a somewhat attractive, and definitely intelligent woman (apparently) wants them. They don't have the self-esteem to walk away from her bat-shittery and she despises them for it and feels entitled to torment and ultimately crush men who she sees as both spineless and beneath her, and who she honestly believes should be eternally grateful for her condescending to treat with them at all.
Just my two cents.

[welch]

Completely OT, but can anyone recommend a good cloud service for backing up my hard drives?

I don't know where to start, to be honest. Thanks.

Crashplan is quite good.

I hate to get all tinfoil hatty, but cloud services make me paranoid. Who has access to my stuff? Will information be sold to marketers? Will I get in trouble for having torrents of shows off of premium cable channels?

In order:

1) depends on what you mean by access. You are giving your data to someone else. Assume that at some point, LE could get to it.
2) Since CP actually charges for service, unlike Le Goog, not in my experience. They make money the old-fashioned less-invasive way.
3) Maybe. Since I don't do that, I wouldn't know. But I've not heard of it happening.

[katamari Damassi]

A while back someone (I can't be assed to go back and check who) asked how many men on The Pit would consider Stollznow dateable.
Okay, given what I know about her now, my answer is that is, if you pointed a gun at my head and told me to go near her, I'd pull the trigger for you.
Absent that information, if I just saw a picture and read her resume. I'd consider her eligible. She's a "7".
If you needed someone to post a number for me - ask Phil, he's met me in person.
If you look at Radford (aka Uncle Fester) and Baxter (aka Billy Joe Armstrong as Fat Elvis) then you could be excused for concluding there's an obvious explanation for them putting up with her demented shit.
Neither of these guys is that very high up on the food chain.
I don't claim to know what happened in all this, but I think a reasonable theory is that Stollznow is a predator. She seeks out guys who can't believe that a somewhat attractive, and definitely intelligent woman (apparently) wants them. They don't have the self-esteem to walk away from her bat-shittery and she despises them for it and feels entitled to torment and ultimately crush men who she sees as both spineless and beneath her, and who she honestly believes should be eternally grateful for her condescending to treat with them at all.
Just my two cents.

Usually when you see a hot guy who's with an ugly chick you know he's a closet case desperately clinging to heterosexuality. So I guess when you see a hot chick with an ugly guy who isn't wealthy, it means she's an abusive mental case?

[Really?]

Coffee at a skeptics conference? This is probably a VERY bad idea...

And sh/h/it has phrased that very poorly.

[katamari Damassi]

A while back someone (I can't be assed to go back and check who) asked how many men on The Pit would consider Stollznow dateable.
Okay, given what I know about her now, my answer is that is, if you pointed a gun at my head and told me to go near her, I'd pull the trigger for you.
Absent that information, if I just saw a picture and read her resume. I'd consider her eligible. She's a "7".
If you needed someone to post a number for me - ask Phil, he's met me in person.
If you look at Radford (aka Uncle Fester) and Baxter (aka Billy Joe Armstrong as Fat Elvis) then you could be excused for concluding there's an obvious explanation for them putting up with her demented shit.
Neither of these guys is that very high up on the food chain.
I don't claim to know what happened in all this, but I think a reasonable theory is that Stollznow is a predator. She seeks out guys who can't believe that a somewhat attractive, and definitely intelligent woman (apparently) wants them. They don't have the self-esteem to walk away from her bat-shittery and she despises them for it and feels entitled to torment and ultimately crush men who she sees as both spineless and beneath her, and who she honestly believes should be eternally grateful for her condescending to treat with them at all.
Just my two cents.

Usually when you see a hot guy who's with an ugly chick you know he's a closet case desperately clinging to heterosexuality. So I guess when you see a hot chick with an ugly guy who isn't wealthy, it means she's an abusive mental case?

Addendum: Or they're a couple on a CBS sitcom.

[Dick Strawkins]

A while back someone (I can't be assed to go back and check who) asked how many men on The Pit would consider Stollznow dateable.
Okay, given what I know about her now, my answer is that is, if you pointed a gun at my head and told me to go near her, I'd pull the trigger for you.
Absent that information, if I just saw a picture and read her resume. I'd consider her eligible. She's a "7".
If you needed someone to post a number for me - ask Phil, he's met me in person.
If you look at Radford (aka Uncle Fester) and Baxter (aka Billy Joe Armstrong as Fat Elvis) then you could be excused for concluding there's an obvious explanation for them putting up with her demented shit.
Neither of these guys is that very high up on the food chain.
I don't claim to know what happened in all this, but I think a reasonable theory is that Stollznow is a predator. She seeks out guys who can't believe that a somewhat attractive, and definitely intelligent woman (apparently) wants them. They don't have the self-esteem to walk away from her bat-shittery and she despises them for it and feels entitled to torment and ultimately crush men who she sees as both spineless and beneath her, and who she honestly believes should be eternally grateful for her condescending to treat with them at all.
Just my two cents.

On looks alone I would say she's by far the best looking of all the skepchick bunch.

Trigger warning!!

http://i.imgur.com/021rPQb.jpg

If you ignore looks and just go by ability: again, she is head and shoulders above any of them (she's the author of several books, she has presented Point of Inquiry, she's given talks on real skeptical subjects for the past decade - and at no point ending up a laughing stock for getting the science entirely wrong - unlike a certain red or blue haired person we might name.)

So, there is a reason why men in the skeptical community would be attracted to her.
Why they would stay with her - or even marry her when they know how volatile she is, is another question.
Then again, we don't really know about the ones that got away.
I wonder if a certain well known skeptic who wears bicycle shorts (thanks Brian Thompson!) fits into the picture somewhere along the line...

[Percentage]

And Scalzi has redeemed himself somewhat with an excellent post on Brendan Eich:

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2014/04/05/b ... d-mozilla/

He really is a pretty good writer. I've noticed that he falters whenever he gets into the SJW crap.

[dogen]

:shock:
You always seem so calm. What do you do when the scorpions do terrible things like that, serenely flick it off then find a shoe?
Just the thought alone is making my mind scream and I feel all wigged out.

I was told by a number of locals (I'm originally from a scorpion-less part of Texas) that you absolutely must remain calm and suppress the heebie-jeebies, and flick the scorpion off, then stomp it. Otherwise you're much more likely to get stung.

I've seen scorpions deliberately embedded in candy, that you're supposed to eat. That seems totally cray-cray to me.

I've got a scorpion story for Robokitty. When I was in Africa I wanted a cat and another Peace Corps volunteer's cat had kittens so I took one. The family I lived with never had a cat and they weren't enthused about it. My village mom told me she'd kill it if it went after the chickens. And it turned out my village dad was afraid of cats. So of course the kitten took a liking to him and would always approach him. It was especially funny to his wife when the cat would approach him while he was doing his evening prayers on his mat. Anyway..one day he's on his mat and the cat is there only it's not attempting to rub up against him it's batting something around. The something was a scorpion. Well my dad thought the cat saved him from a scorpion sting and got to like it so much that when the time came for me to leave I left the cat with him.
The cat never did go after the chicks, and that was interesting to me because it didn't have to be trained not to. It just seemed to know they were off limits and kept his hunting confined to lizards and mice and the like.

You did Peace Corps? Cool! I was a VSO volunteer out in Ghana, and I had much fun at weekends meeting up with local Peace Corps workers. There was this one guy who was providing computer training in the nearby (~ 3 hours) big town, and we used to play Quake together on his machines. He convinced me to use the chemicals/glassware/equipment in my schools chemistry lab (which were unused, the chemistry teacher died of AIDS shortly after I arrived) to brew up some nitrous oxide. I *think* I managed to make some, but it was contaminated by dinitrogen tetroxide and so we had to ditch it.

Another VSO volunteer I knew had a kitten, the most gorgeous little thing you can imagine (it had been taken a bit too early from its mom, so it used to suckle on your knuckles). It killed a very nasty (deadly venom) snake a few weeks after I visited her; pretty cool. But generally, the locals didn't seem keen on keeping cats -- except perhaps as food.

What were you doing with the Peace Corps? I was working as a physics school teacher.

[Gefan]

On looks alone I would say she's by far the best looking of all the skepchick bunch.

Trigger warning!!

http://i.imgur.com/021rPQb.jpg

If you ignore looks and just go by ability: again, she is head and shoulders above any of them (she's the author of several books, she has presented Point of Inquiry, she's given talks on real skeptical subjects for the past decade - and at no point ending up a laughing stock for getting the science entirely wrong - unlike a certain red or blue haired person we might name.)

So, there is a reason why men in the skeptical community would be attracted to her.
Why they would stay with her - or even marry her when they know how volatile she is, is another question.
Then again, we don't really know about the ones that got away.
I wonder if a certain well known skeptic who wears bicycle shorts (thanks Brian Thompson!) fits into the picture somewhere along the line...

I would like to think that when some jihadist suicide bomber arrives in paradise expecting seventy-two virgins, that the above photo is a sample of what is actually awaiting him...

[Clarence]

A while back someone (I can't be assed to go back and check who) asked how many men on The Pit would consider Stollznow dateable.
Okay, given what I know about her now, my answer is that is, if you pointed a gun at my head and told me to go near her, I'd pull the trigger for you.
Absent that information, if I just saw a picture and read her resume. I'd consider her eligible. She's a "7".
If you needed someone to post a number for me - ask Phil, he's met me in person.
If you look at Radford (aka Uncle Fester) and Baxter (aka Billy Joe Armstrong as Fat Elvis) then you could be excused for concluding there's an obvious explanation for them putting up with her demented shit.
Neither of these guys is that very high up on the food chain.
I don't claim to know what happened in all this, but I think a reasonable theory is that Stollznow is a predator. She seeks out guys who can't believe that a somewhat attractive, and definitely intelligent woman (apparently) wants them. They don't have the self-esteem to walk away from her bat-shittery and she despises them for it and feels entitled to torment and ultimately crush men who she sees as both spineless and beneath her, and who she honestly believes should be eternally grateful for her condescending to treat with them at all.
Just my two cents.

On looks alone I would say she's by far the best looking of all the skepchick bunch.

Trigger warning!!

http://i.imgur.com/021rPQb.jpg

If you ignore looks and just go by ability: again, she is head and shoulders above any of them (she's the author of several books, she has presented Point of Inquiry, she's given talks on real skeptical subjects for the past decade - and at no point ending up a laughing stock for getting the science entirely wrong - unlike a certain red or blue haired person we might name.)

So, there is a reason why men in the skeptical community would be attracted to her.
Why they would stay with her - or even marry her when they know how volatile she is, is another question.
Then again, we don't really know about the ones that got away.
I wonder if a certain well known skeptic who wears bicycle shorts (thanks Brian Thompson!) fits into the picture somewhere along the line...

Pulling out my inner Quagmire: Number 3 from the left looks like the 'babe' of the bunch to me, and I don't even recognize who she is. But then I don't recognize most of them.
Stollznow, and the one immediately to the right of her are 7's. The rest vary from normal to fugly, but none of them are downright repulsive even the 3 legitimate fatties. I guess we are talking (in my opinion which is all that counts :P) an 8 or almost an 8 at the third from the left, 2 7's (Stollznow and her wing girl) a few 6 and 5's (including Becky) and three whale 3's.

Ahh, the Male Gaze. :whistle:

[Clarence]

On a more serious and less personal note:
Women tend not to objectify men as much in terms of looks EXCEPT for height.
I'm 5'8. That extra one or two inches I'm missing isn't always noticeable (In my life I've rarely been referred to as short. Thank God I'm within an inch or two of 'average') but there's no doubt I'd be better off if I was 5'10, or 5'11.

[Søren Lilholt]

Completely OT, but can anyone recommend a good cloud service for backing up my hard drives?

I don't know where to start, to be honest. Thanks.

Crashplan is quite good.

Cheers.

[katamari Damassi]

I've got a scorpion story for Robokitty. When I was in Africa I wanted a cat and another Peace Corps volunteer's cat had kittens so I took one. The family I lived with never had a cat and they weren't enthused about it. My village mom told me she'd kill it if it went after the chickens. And it turned out my village dad was afraid of cats. So of course the kitten took a liking to him and would always approach him. It was especially funny to his wife when the cat would approach him while he was doing his evening prayers on his mat. Anyway..one day he's on his mat and the cat is there only it's not attempting to rub up against him it's batting something around. The something was a scorpion. Well my dad thought the cat saved him from a scorpion sting and got to like it so much that when the time came for me to leave I left the cat with him.
The cat never did go after the chicks, and that was interesting to me because it didn't have to be trained not to. It just seemed to know they were off limits and kept his hunting confined to lizards and mice and the like.

You did Peace Corps? Cool! I was a VSO volunteer out in Ghana, and I had much fun at weekends meeting up with local Peace Corps workers. There was this one guy who was providing computer training in the nearby (~ 3 hours) big town, and we used to play Quake together on his machines. He convinced me to use the chemicals/glassware/equipment in my schools chemistry lab (which were unused, the chemistry teacher died of AIDS shortly after I arrived) to brew up some nitrous oxide. I *think* I managed to make some, but it was contaminated by dinitrogen tetroxide and so we had to ditch it.

Another VSO volunteer I knew had a kitten, the most gorgeous little thing you can imagine (it had been taken a bit too early from its mom, so it used to suckle on your knuckles). It killed a very nasty (deadly venom) snake a few weeks after I visited her; pretty cool. But generally, the locals didn't seem keen on keeping cats -- except perhaps as food.

What were you doing with the Peace Corps? I was working as a physics school teacher.

Environmental education in Senegal. Not teaching classes but working with teachers in 7 different rural schools on projects and folding environmental ed into their existing curricula. It was a program the Senegalese government initiated, they just let us help out.

VSO sounds really interesting.

[Clarence]

On looks alone I would say she's by far the best looking of all the skepchick bunch.

Trigger warning!!

http://i.imgur.com/021rPQb.jpg

If you ignore looks and just go by ability: again, she is head and shoulders above any of them (she's the author of several books, she has presented Point of Inquiry, she's given talks on real skeptical subjects for the past decade - and at no point ending up a laughing stock for getting the science entirely wrong - unlike a certain red or blue haired person we might name.)

So, there is a reason why men in the skeptical community would be attracted to her.
Why they would stay with her - or even marry her when they know how volatile she is, is another question.
Then again, we don't really know about the ones that got away.
I wonder if a certain well known skeptic who wears bicycle shorts (thanks Brian Thompson!) fits into the picture somewhere along the line...

I would like to think that when some jihadist suicide bomber arrives in paradise expecting seventy-two virgins, that the above photo is a sample of what is actually awaiting him...

I wouldn't mind Stollznow, (if she wasn't vindictive and crazy), her friend with the flowers or the girl third from the left that I'm drooling over.
But yeah, if you had to include ALL of them esp with the personalities we know...well, let's just say it would be a special form of HELL. :twisted:

[Tigzy]

I'm 5'8. That extra one or two inches I'm missing isn't always noticeable (In my life I've rarely been referred to as short. Thank God I'm within an inch or two of 'average') but there's no doubt I'd be better off if I was 5'10, or 5'11.

Is less than 5'10"
http://i.imgur.com/2UTjFho.jpg
Would not bang.

[JacquesCuze]

And Scalzi has redeemed himself somewhat with an excellent post on Brendan Eich:

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2014/04/05/b ... d-mozilla/

He really is a pretty good writer. I've noticed that he falters whenever he gets into the SJW crap.

Scalzi is distorting the story.

Eich wasn't some n00b. He literally co-founded the company, and wrote an enormous amount of the code that made the company special. So he is literally the expert on how that company's product works. Moreover, of the fifteen years since the founding, their head lizard wranger (https://www.google.com/search?q=head+li ... rd+wranger) said that she had no idea of Eich's personal views, they were never apparent in how he contributed within the company.

It is almost certain then the Eich has many gay friends at Mozilla, and that Mozilla's open culture, that is, what Scalzi says makes it special, is to a major degree dependent on Eich's dedication to that culture from the very beginning and throughout.

So that fifteen years later when he says he is still dedicated to that culture and to all the employees, well, that's a bit different from when some company hires some n00b CEO from somewhere else and he is on the job for two weeks and then his past comes up.

I also find it dishonest to characterize his firing as merely a resignation of his own choice. We all know that's not how these things happen, nor did it happen there. After two weeks of politicking he was pushed out and for the good of the organization and his own future it has been characterized as his resignation.

And yes, it is ironic and fucktarded that all this occurs in the same 48 hour period (IIRC) that the SCOTUS makes it clear they consider monetary donations and speech to be the same.

http://www.fppc.ca.gov/index.php?id=57

History of the Political Reform Act

Until California voters imposed a revolutionary ballot initiative measure on the state's political arena, laws governing the conduct of public officials and campaign committees were few, weak and largely ignored. Then in 1974, voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 9, giving birth to the Political Reform Act and a new, independent agency to administer, interpret and enforce its provisions. The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) and that landmark law have served as a model for the nation and the democratic world ever since. The Act governs disclosure of political campaign contributions and spending by candidates and ballot measure committees. It also sets ethics rules for state and local government officials that impose strict limits on decisions or votes that affect the official's financial interests. The Act also regulates lobbyist's financial disclosure and lobbying practices related to the legislature and state agencies. The Political Reform Act is designed to assure that: State and local government serve all citizens equally, without regard to status or wealth; Public officials perform their duties impartially, without bias because of personal financial interests or the interests of financial supporters; Public officials disclose income and assets that could be affected by official actions and disqualify themselves from participating in decisions when they have conflicts of interest; Election campaign receipts and expenditures are fully and truthfully disclosed so voters are informed and improper practices are inhibited; Elections are fair; No laws or practices favor incumbents; The state ballot pamphlet gives useful information about state measures so voters can be less dependent on paid advertising for information; The activity of those who lobby the state legislature is regulated and finances disclosed to prevent improper influence on public officials; and Public officials and private citizens are given the means to vigorously enforce political reforms.

Disclosures of who donates to campaigns was intended to make sure elected officials served everyone equally, and to make lobbyist donations clear. It was not intended to be used as some list of people to get if you didn't like their vote.

I guess it wasn't so long ago we had this:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/ ... 881603.php

Supreme Court on R-71: Names on petitions can be made public
Public disclosure case attracted national attention
By CHRIS GRYGIEL, SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF
Updated 2:17 pm, Monday, April 25, 2011

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the names of people who signed petitions in an attempt to overturn a new gay rights law in Washington could be made public, a victory for state officials who said the case was a test of open government laws.

Justices ruled 8-1 in a case called Doe V. Reed. Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented. They heard oral arguments in Washington, D.C., April 28.

The ruling dealt broadly with claims by foes of the new gay rights law that disclosing their names would violate their First Amendment rights. However the justices said the plaintiffs could go back to a lower court to try to get a specific exemption on other grounds - and the chief lawyer for people who signed the Referendum 71 petitions said he would do so.

Washington state officials praised the decision.

"This is a good day for transparency and accountability in elections--not just in Washington but across our country," Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna said. "We're pleased the Supreme Court ruled in favor of disclosure, upholding the public's right to double-check the work of signature gatherers and government -- and giving them the ability to learn which voters are directing the state to hold an election on a new law. Citizen legislating is too important to be conducted in secret."

Secretary of State Sam Reed welcomed the ruling, too. But he said he understood the privacy conncerns "in the Internet era and the desire to participate in our initiative and referendum process without fear of harassment or retaliation."

"I will continue to speak out for civility in our citizenship and will firmly insist that petition signatures not be used in a threatening or inappropriate way," Reed added.

If the conservatives had won and were seeking to purge the names of people supporting gay rights it would be equally wrong to go after signers of gay rights petitions or CEOs that donated to gay rights causes.

It will be wrong in Texas to go after CEOs that are against teaching creationism in schools.

I have long heard that the answer to ugly speech is more speech, and part of that is understanding that demanding firings over someone's speech is bullshit.

Scalzi is no friend of speech. He's just another SJ princess.