Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...

[dogen]

There's really no way that a person could skim an astrophysics textbook and then make up what he needs to teach classes in the subject. But that's not a problem for Women's Studies.

Really, really? That's how I do it when I teach astrophysics! :D

[Brive1987]

So when she is shown to have done these things, I'm guessing FtB will replicate their Dunning hate on her.

You know, the "no room for a fraud in our ranks" monkey chant.

And all :roll: he did was shake E-bay down a dime at a time.

[zenbabe]

Dredging this up from the far distant past of almost 10 pages ago:

Maybe for a high level course?
Perhaps that's all you teach.
Do you ever get the random, misplaced SJW in your classes?
I'm imagining Melody facing that question and the twittering about the PTSD she got from it.

There's a lot of social justice built into policies, administration, and activities at my university, and I'm honestly on board with, or actively involved in, most of it. Of course some people are going to carry it to the SJW extreme, and we have a few of those (not just students). When it becomes so extreme as to be a ridiculous, counter-productive circle jerk, I feel compelled to adopt a subversive approach.

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/6446934016/h784BF5E3/

It's possible the bar fight story could be adapted so it's not so extreme, like have the guy stop chewing the glass after one piece cuts an artery, or pierces through his cheek, or something like that. 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.

Hey
There was a House episode about that. Are people with that insensitivity to pain able to feel pleasure?

[mordacious1]

Has anyone ever noticed how 1960's sitcoms tended to be pretty (for lack of a better word) perverted? My usual example is: A bunch of well-endowed women in "Petticoat Junction" living in Hooterville. Also I was just watching "Gilligan's Island" today (I know, I was doing my taxes and was bored). Anyway it was a show about a robot parachuting onto the island and the dialog went like this:

GINGER: I'll make it a little clearer for you. You see I've been stuck on this island for a long long time. Understand?
ROBOT: I UNDERSTAND.
GINGER: And a...I want you to get me off.
ROBOT: I AM NOT PROGRAMMED FOR THAT TASK GINGER.

These shows are certainly funnier when you're older and can understand the humor.

[JacquesCuze]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... nt-page-1/

Doctor David Gorski, sophisticated man about skepticism, on the denial of defenses to the innocent in the name of Marquess of Queensberry Rules and the Pussy Pass:

As has been pointed out, however, even if Radford is 100% the wronged party in this case, his posting all this stuff to the web, particularly those pictures, is still the biggest dick move I’ve seen in a very, very long time.

Even if Radford is completely vindicated, turning out to have been the wronged party and being shown to have been behaving as pure as the driven snow with respect to KS, I would still think he’s a skeevy sleaze ball, based solely on his own recent behavior, particularly his posting of those pictures. There is no excuse or justification for that that could change my impression.

Frankly, I know I'd gain a lot more from a Wagner Opera, a Polanski Movie, or even a lecture about whether Hitler could paint than reading another David Gorski more-skeptical-than-thou slice of bologna.

[Brive1987]

ConcentratedH2O, OM -

http://i.imgur.com/jcRFNg3.jpg

;)

[FlyingV]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... nt-page-1/

Doctor David Gorski, sophisticated man about skepticism, on the denial of defenses to the innocent in the name of Marquess of Queensberry Rules and the Pussy Pass:

As has been pointed out, however, even if Radford is 100% the wronged party in this case, his posting all this stuff to the web, particularly those pictures, is still the biggest dick move I’ve seen in a very, very long time.

Even if Radford is completely vindicated, turning out to have been the wronged party and being shown to have been behaving as pure as the driven snow with respect to KS, I would still think he’s a skeevy sleaze ball, based solely on his own recent behavior, particularly his posting of those pictures. There is no excuse or justification for that that could change my impression.

Frankly, I know I'd gain a lot more from a Wagner Opera, a Polanski Movie, or even a lecture about whether Hitler could paint than reading another David Gorski more-skeptical-than-thou slice of bologna.

I have quite a bit of respect for Gorski, but I'm pretty sure that the most scandalous thing he's ever done in his life could probably be shown on an episode of Full House. From what I've read by him over the years, it seems that his squeaky clean life has made him a bit judgmental of those of us who may have strayed from social norms.

Was the worst picture the hand one, or did he post something else? I keep hearing "revenge porn," and if that's what they consider porn, perhaps I can direct them to some better sites to surf.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

ConcentratedH2O, OM -

http://i.imgur.com/jcRFNg3.jpg

;)

http://i.imgur.com/85r7NoN.jpg

[katamari Damassi]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... nt-page-1/

Doctor David Gorski, sophisticated man about skepticism, on the denial of defenses to the innocent in the name of Marquess of Queensberry Rules and the Pussy Pass:

As has been pointed out, however, even if Radford is 100% the wronged party in this case, his posting all this stuff to the web, particularly those pictures, is still the biggest dick move I’ve seen in a very, very long time.

Even if Radford is completely vindicated, turning out to have been the wronged party and being shown to have been behaving as pure as the driven snow with respect to KS, I would still think he’s a skeevy sleaze ball, based solely on his own recent behavior, particularly his posting of those pictures. There is no excuse or justification for that that could change my impression.

Frankly, I know I'd gain a lot more from a Wagner Opera, a Polanski Movie, or even a lecture about whether Hitler could paint than reading another David Gorski more-skeptical-than-thou slice of bologna.

I have quite a bit of respect for Gorski, but I'm pretty sure that the most scandalous thing he's ever done in his life could probably be shown on an episode of Full House. From what I've read by him over the years, it seems that his squeaky clean life has made him a bit judgmental of those of us who may have strayed from social norms.

Was the worst picture the hand one, or did he post something else? I keep hearing "revenge porn," and if that's what they consider porn, perhaps I can direct them to some better sites to surf.

He has a grudge against Dr. Amy formerly of Science Based Medicine but now she blogs at the Skeptical OB. Anyway an ignorant Skepchick(redundant, I know)did a flawed critique of a Dr. Amy post. When Amy came down hard on her, she enlisted the help of Gorski who attempted to intercede on her behalf and he also attacked Amy's post. He threw a medical colleague under the bus for a Skepchick, because of personal rivalry. What's more is that Amy's post was pretty much accurate and he had to resort to hyperbole to attack her and defend the Skepchick. I hope he at least got some pussy out of it, but hopefully not an STI-which is probably just a social construct anyway.

[JacquesCuze]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... nt-page-1/

Doctor David Gorski, sophisticated man about skepticism, on the denial of defenses to the innocent in the name of Marquess of Queensberry Rules and the Pussy Pass:

As has been pointed out, however, even if Radford is 100% the wronged party in this case, his posting all this stuff to the web, particularly those pictures, is still the biggest dick move I’ve seen in a very, very long time.

Even if Radford is completely vindicated, turning out to have been the wronged party and being shown to have been behaving as pure as the driven snow with respect to KS, I would still think he’s a skeevy sleaze ball, based solely on his own recent behavior, particularly his posting of those pictures. There is no excuse or justification for that that could change my impression.

Frankly, I know I'd gain a lot more from a Wagner Opera, a Polanski Movie, or even a lecture about whether Hitler could paint than reading another David Gorski more-skeptical-than-thou slice of bologna.

I have quite a bit of respect for Gorski, but I'm pretty sure that the most scandalous thing he's ever done in his life could probably be shown on an episode of Full House. From what I've read by him over the years, it seems that his squeaky clean life has made him a bit judgmental of those of us who may have strayed from social norms.

Was the worst picture the hand one, or did he post something else? I keep hearing "revenge porn," and if that's what they consider porn, perhaps I can direct them to some better sites to surf.

I asked that as well, and downloaded the website with wget, and near as I can tell, it is that one picture of the two of them in bed from above the chest where Stollznow's face is almost totally obscured that is the horrible revenge porn picture. It is hard for me to believe Orac even saw that picture if that is his reaction to it.

[Guestus Aurelius]

Part of me sincerely hopes that Gorski himself (substitute PZ or Thimbledick or any of these holier-than-thou douchebags who suck at life) becomes the target of a false accusation and witch hunt. This "even if the accusation of sexual assault that has ruined Radford's reputation and brought his career to a halt is completely false, his defending himself publicly is by far worse than the extraordinarily public false accusation itself because woman" bullshit makes me almost literally shake with rage. Not quite, but almost.

The fucking nerve. Anyone who really thinks like that is even worse than white liberal atheists who don't want to talk to about feminism. Yeah, I went there.

[katamari Damassi]

As has been pointed out, however, even if Radford is 100% the wronged party in this case, his posting all this stuff to the web, particularly those pictures, is still the biggest dick move I’ve seen in a very, very long time.

Even if Radford is completely vindicated, turning out to have been the wronged party and being shown to have been behaving as pure as the driven snow with respect to KS, I would still think he’s a skeevy sleaze ball, based solely on his own recent behavior, particularly his posting of those pictures. There is no excuse or justification for that that could change my impression.

Frankly, I know I'd gain a lot more from a Wagner Opera, a Polanski Movie, or even a lecture about whether Hitler could paint than reading another David Gorski more-skeptical-than-thou slice of bologna.

I have quite a bit of respect for Gorski, but I'm pretty sure that the most scandalous thing he's ever done in his life could probably be shown on an episode of Full House. From what I've read by him over the years, it seems that his squeaky clean life has made him a bit judgmental of those of us who may have strayed from social norms.

Was the worst picture the hand one, or did he post something else? I keep hearing "revenge porn," and if that's what they consider porn, perhaps I can direct them to some better sites to surf.[/quote]

I asked that as well, and downloaded the website with wget, and near as I can tell, it is that one picture of the two of them in bed from above the chest where Stollznow's face is almost totally obscured that is the horrible revenge porn picture. It is hard for me to believe Orac even saw that picture if that is his reaction to it.[/quote]
Orac is an SJW, or at least is in bed with them-or wants to be.

[katamari Damassi]

Part of me sincerely hopes that Gorski himself (substitute PZ or Thimbledick or any of these holier-than-thou douchebags who suck at life) becomes the target of a false accusation and witch hunt. This "even if the accusation of sexual assault that has ruined Radford's reputation and brought his career to a halt is completely false, his defending himself publicly is by far worse than the extraordinarily public false accusation itself because woman" bullshit makes me almost literally shake with rage. Not quite, but almost.

The fucking nerve. Anyone who really thinks like that is even worse than white liberal atheists who don't want to talk to about feminism. Yeah, I went there.

Don't shake with rage. The SJW kind of own that. With Mykeru's permission though your voice can vibrate with rage.

[Aneris]

Like any privilege or privilege-like status, the "cool kids" should spend time and energy promoting those who are less "cool" #skeptech
9:41 PM - 6 Apr 2014

Why is it a privilege to be perceived as cool? Why would you want to spent time with kids with very different interests? Sometimes cool or not cool is about maturity, with the cool kids a tad ahead and already interested in romance and showing off. And lots of people don't know how they are being perceived, especially not kids, and the cool kids sometimes pay for coolness in other areas. Unless we are talking about cliché characters of some TV show, its rather complicated in real-life. I have the feeling though that Crommunist, Zvan and Thibeault's (tweeter/retweeters) people skills might even surpass their ability to reason. Which is not very well developed. Twitter notwithstanding, I guess the message would be as meaningless in another medium, too. Don't you support the people in Iowa?

[AndrewV69]

He has a grudge against Dr. Amy formerly of Science Based Medicine but now she blogs at the Skeptical OB. Anyway an ignorant Skepchick(redundant, I know)did a flawed critique of a Dr. Amy post. When Amy came down hard on her, she enlisted the help of Gorski who attempted to intercede on her behalf and he also attacked Amy's post. He threw a medical colleague under the bus for a Skepchick, because of personal rivalry. What's more is that Amy's post was pretty much accurate and he had to resort to hyperbole to attack her and defend the Skepchick. I hope he at least got some pussy out of it, but hopefully not an STI-which is probably just a social construct anyway.

Well, (not sure if/how much this applies here) but the smarter the person is, the dumber politics can make them

Consider how utterly insane that is: being better at math made partisans less likely to solve the problem correctly when solving the problem correctly meant betraying their political instincts. People weren’t reasoning to get the right answer; they were reasoning to get the answer that they wanted to be right.

Now, if you are already stupid computationally disadvantaged ...

[SoylentAtheist]

OMG! I just found this revenge porn site that is open to the whole internet! Even little kiddies!

Please share the URL to this revenge porn site so that Free Thought Blogs & Groski can do something about this!

https://www.google.com/search?q=straple ... s&tbm=isch Not Safe for Groski

[FlyingV]

He has a grudge against Dr. Amy formerly of Science Based Medicine but now she blogs at the Skeptical OB. Anyway an ignorant Skepchick(redundant, I know)did a flawed critique of a Dr. Amy post. When Amy came down hard on her, she enlisted the help of Gorski who attempted to intercede on her behalf and he also attacked Amy's post. He threw a medical colleague under the bus for a Skepchick, because of personal rivalry. What's more is that Amy's post was pretty much accurate and he had to resort to hyperbole to attack her and defend the Skepchick. I hope he at least got some pussy out of it, but hopefully not an STI-which is probably just a social construct anyway.

Ahhhh....that actually makes sense. He did seem to kiss Jamie's ass, and I just chalked it up to his being naive and really believing the sexual harassment hype.

[katamari Damassi]

Like any privilege or privilege-like status, the "cool kids" should spend time and energy promoting those who are less "cool" #skeptech
9:41 PM - 6 Apr 2014

Why is it a privilege to be perceived as cool? Why would you want to spent time with kids with very different interests? Sometimes cool or not cool is about maturity, with the cool kids a tad ahead and already interested in romance and showing off. And lots of people don't know how they are being perceived, especially not kids, and the cool kids sometimes pay for coolness in other areas. Unless we are talking about cliché characters of some TV show, its rather complicated in real-life. I have the feeling though that Crommunist, Zvan and Thibeault's (tweeter/retweeters) people skills might even surpass their ability to reason. Which is not very well developed. Twitter notwithstanding, I guess the message would be as meaningless in another medium, too. Don't you support the people in Iowa?

What's more is that in the US black people have for the last 75 years at least, have been perceived as more cool.

[acathode]

Like any privilege or privilege-like status, the "cool kids" should spend time and energy promoting those who are less "cool" #skeptech
9:41 PM - 6 Apr 2014

Why is it a privilege to be perceived as cool? Why would you want to spent time with kids with very different interests? Sometimes cool or not cool is about maturity, with the cool kids a tad ahead and already interested in romance and showing off. And lots of people don't know how they are being perceived, especially not kids, and the cool kids sometimes pay for coolness in other areas. Unless we are talking about cliché characters of some TV show, its rather complicated in real-life. I have the feeling though that Crommunist, Zvan and Thibeault's (tweeter/retweeters) people skills might even surpass their ability to reason. Which is not very well developed. Twitter notwithstanding, I guess the message would be as meaningless in another medium, too. Don't you support the people in Iowa?

Personally, instead of complicating thinks, I feel that you could just translate Crommunists tweet to "The successful people should spend time and energy to promote me and my friends!", and then forget about it ;)

[James Caruthers]

Speaking of desperate Pharyngula posts, just look at the latest:

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

Dana's solution is so simple and brilliant that Peezus can't see any downside to it.

So then, she's come up with a solution that will end the abortion problem.
Fantastic!

What is it?

Apparently it's the compulsory sterilization of all males (after they've stored a few vials of sperm in a deep freeze, for future planned breeding puposes.)

I can't wait until he eventually goes full retard and proposes the "brilliant solution to the problem of overpopulation" where all cishet white men except for a few "breeders" are killed to make room for the trans otherkin special snowflakes and womyn.

Sterilize all men= totes not hate speech.

Sterilize all womyn= totes hate speech.

How do I feminism?

[James Caruthers]

I actually kind of agree with them here. What straight guy wouldn't want to control his fertility? Do you really want to risk knocking up a Stollznow? There have been cases where women have lied about using contraceptives, bitten holes in condoms, spit semen into their vaginas after blowing a dude. If I were straight I think I would've gone that route.

I probably will, myself.

The problem here is Peez thinks, like most enlightened college liberal types, that HE should be the arbiter of other people's choices, because "Peezus Knows Best."

[James Caruthers]

I think the biggest embarrassment with the hugo affair was that it showed many feminists, perhaps most, still think with their ovaries when dealing with men. Even ones who would spit on just about every man they come across acted like giggling school girls around hugo. Seeing hensley (even marcotte..... :shock: :shock: :shock: ) flirt with him still brings a bit of vomit up into my mouth. Im convinced male feminists are part flawed thinking, part putting on a show for women.

Yeah, but the thing is, only the fake male feminists can really ride the feminist pussy train. :dance: Real male feminists usually act so fucking spineless and servile (there are articles a-plenty of feminist women complaining about this) that most heterosexual feminists have no interest in them. Schwyzer using his power, influence and looks to have sex worked because he didn't really believe in Jesus Feminism in his heart.

[Brive1987]

OMG! I just found this revenge porn site that is open to the whole internet! Even little kiddies!

Please share the URL to this revenge porn site so that Free Thought Blogs & Groski can do something about this!

https://www.google.com/search?q=straple ... s&tbm=isch Not Safe for Groski

Oh I suspect there is more to Gonski than he projects with his trademark "Beige Bear" glare.

http://i.imgur.com/DeIh2Ka.jpg

[Dick Strawkins]

Whatever else may be going on in her life, Karen Stollznow knows her stuff & is doing actual investigation & scholarship on stuff applicable to the A/S movement; see (well, listen to) the interview linked at the page below:

http://www.skepticink.com/backgroundpro ... s-america/

(The link was posted here in the past page or two; just listened to it)

Yes, and whatever else you can say about Hitler, those trains did run on time:

[img]http://ww2today.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... merika.jpg

[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-clUOb8z59Xo/T ... _16988.jpg

Now I'm sure there's a reason why you insist on minimizing Stollznow's actions, if not outright shilling for her, or why you had to make a point to pop into the #skeptech timeline to assure them that there was only one SlymePitter (me) making fun of them, but it's probably not all that interesting and aside from being mildly annoyed, it's probably not worth worrying about.

Excuse me, back to videos.

I don't read Skep Tickle's remarks about Stollznow as meaning what you seem to be suggesting, namely that Stollznow produces some high quality work and therefore we should excuse her personal behavior.

My interpretation was that Skep Tickle is just pointing out that Stollznow has some abilities in academic skepticism (I made the same point myself a couple of pages back.)
This doesn't excuse anything Stollznow does outside that academic work.
It simply shows that Stollznow is not just a no talented hanger-on like Watson, Surly Amy or Carry Poppy, but that she is someone who has genuine ability - and therefore that having talent, or skills in skepticism is no guarantee that you will necessarily behave in a decent or non violent way.

As for the Polanski comparison, it is still possible to see him as a great director and yet at the same time believe that he deserves to pay for his crime.

[Brive1987]

Groski.

Gonski is an Australian educational funding reformer (in case you needed to know)
http://www.igiveagonski.com.au/

[Guestus Aurelius]

Not-asshole-version of Gorski: "If it turns out that Radford is guilty, publishing that photo is a total dick move."

[acathode]

Speaking of desperate Pharyngula posts, just look at the latest:

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

Dana's solution is so simple and brilliant that Peezus can't see any downside to it.

So then, she's come up with a solution that will end the abortion problem.
Fantastic!

What is it?

Apparently it's the compulsory sterilization of all males (after they've stored a few vials of sperm in a deep freeze, for future planned breeding puposes.)

I can't wait until he eventually goes full retard and proposes the "brilliant solution to the problem of overpopulation" where all cishet white men except for a few "breeders" are killed to make room for the trans otherkin special snowflakes and womyn.

Sterilize all men= totes not hate speech.

Sterilize all womyn= totes hate speech.

How do I feminism?

Of for fucks sake! Don't you get it? He's only joking! Chill out a bit, he's only joking about systematically violating all men's bodily autonomy. It's not like he told a rape joke or anything! Now that would actually be horrible...

[Old_ones]

Offered without comment.

While we are obsessing over language, all this "has to go" and "you don't get to" stuff should vanish. If you want to have a respectful dialogue over what might be offensive, steph, I'm game. On the other hand, your signature is curiously absent from my paychecks. I have no reason at all to defer to your fatwas, so get over yourself, and adjust your fucking attitude if you want me to listen to you.

[James Caruthers]

When I hear a social justice wanker say "we need to change this right now" or "this needs to stop," I just replace it in my brain with GLURP GLURP GLURP GLURP. It sounds less retarded.

Even if the social justice wankers got absolutely everything they ever asked for, all that would do is make civilized society about a hundred times more fucked up than it currently is, and probably put about half the world population in prison for imagined offenses against other people's feels. They are toxic to the core.

[Brive1987]

Waiting for MM - I see the Chas-ter has come back to the 'dome for his daily beating.

At least he hasn't lost his humour:

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

I suspect PZ has his ban-hammer poised, waiting for the baying to reach a desirable crescendo.

[Guestus Aurelius]

Chas doesn't care what they think?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[John Greg]

Nah, nah, Mykeru's absolutely right. Totes.

Radford may have done something bad and Stollznow is raking him over the coals for it, and now because there is some doubt as to the veracity of Stollzsnow's claim and it is in doubt, everything she's ever done in her life should be dismissed, vilified, and hell, let's not pull any punches here: Erase her from history completely.

There: voila. Room 101 Stollznow has never existed.

Stollznow? Who dat?

And Polanski? He did a bad thing so ... wait ... who's this Polanski? There are no movie directors in my comprehensive book of movies directors? He doesn't exist; never did; never will. Neither do his movies. 'cause he did a bad thing let's vilfiy him for everything he ever did including his basic existence. Yup.

Annie Sexton, poetry? Huh?

And PZ Myers did something good the other day, so that means he never did anything bad and we should hail him to the gods. Yay! PZ's God!! Yay.

Hugo! Yay Hugo! Someone smiled at him so he's good guy yay....

Got it.

Mykeru, your miscomprehension of what Skep tickle is saying, is profound.

[FlyingV]

Not-asshole-version of Gorski: "If it turns out that Radford is guilty, publishing that photo is a total dick move."

Even if he's not guilty, it was still a dick move because I threw up in my mouth a bit.

[Kenteken]

As opposed to who were there?

[John Greg]

And fuck me, but that vanished individual, Stollzwhat, has now hit 57k!

Makes me want to cry.

And Radford's friends who set up his defense fund thingy are weak, weak, weak. He'd almost do better with enemies. No meaningful statement of purpose; no appeal to either pathos, logos, or ethos; no statements of fact; nothing. Totally fucked up. That's one of those Thanks but no thanks, guys, kinda move.

[Skep tickle]

This is my favorite of Zvan's tweets from skeptech:

("make our lives harder" may refer to people circumventing barriers people put up online, like MM does)

[John Greg]

Stefunny has posted a really cute and unintentionally funny "defense" rebuttal of the nobody there picture. She says (http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... h-is-over/):

That said, the picture that the Twitter trolls are passing around as “evidence” that the conference was empty is hilarious. Tim Farley took the picture as a panel was being set up. There were 10-minute breaks between all the sessions, and people used them to grab drinks, stretch their legs, talk to the groups at the tables in the hallway, and of course, use the bathroom. That picture was taken midday yesterday, the busiest day of the conference. There are as many people in the audience in that picture as there were at the start of the first talk this morning, after some people had already had to travel home and after the pub night last night.

What's missing from her defense:

1. Numbers.
2. Pictures.
3. Sense.

My favourite bit:

That picture was taken midday yesterday, the busiest day of the conference.

[Brive1987]

Hey rorschach, tell us what you really think!

http://i.imgur.com/eRI8ZVL.jpg

[FlyingV]

And fuck me, but that vanished individual, Stollzwhat, has now hit 57k!

Makes me want to cry.

And Radford's friends who set up his defense fund thingy are weak, weak, weak. He'd almost do better with enemies. No meaningful statement of purpose; no appeal to either pathos, logos, or ethos; no statements of fact; nothing. Totally fucked up. That's one of those Thanks but no thanks, guys, kinda move.

There are a few reasons people won't support him like people support Karen:

- The SJW's supporting Karen have been waiting for an opportunity like this for years. They keep talking about harassment, and now that there is finally a case to "support" it, it's time they put up or shut up. The rest of the skeptical community that doesn't put harassment at conferences high on the list of issues they care about have a lot less emotional investment to inspire financial investment.

- Most people don't want to get involved in he said/she said.

- The celebrities who have come out against the SJW's aren't even supporting this. I'm sure that they don't want the shit hitting the fan to spray on them at all, but as loud as Joe Rogan and Penn have been in the past about the SJW's, they are awfully silent when it comes to actually helping out with funding. A word from either of those guys and a small (for them) donation would help his funds quite a bit. I get that it's a liability for them, but future rantings about SJW's will be a bit hypocritical unless they actually do something about it.

- Karen is cute. Cute people will attract more money.

[KiwiInOz]

Redacted

Mykeru, your miscomprehension of what Skep tickle is saying, is profound.

He's on a mission from God. Do not get in the way of the juggernaut, or you will be but grease on the track.

[John Greg]

Kiwi, how true, how true.

[Brive1987]

Tim Farley took the picture as a panel was being set up. There were 10-minute breaks between all the sessions, and people used them to grab drinks, stretch their legs, talk to the groups at the tables in the hallway, and of course, use the bathroom. That picture was taken midday yesterday, the busiest day of the conference. There are as many people in the audience in that picture as there were at the start of the first talk this morning, after some people had already had to travel home and after the pub night last night.

That makes no sense - is she crowing that the empty room picture reflects the next mornings attendance and that's a good thing? I mean I think we all assumed there may be some dribble-ins for the first day.

Just as well then

.... that the point of recording these talks is to bring them to a wider audience than can attend. Conferences are no longer just about who can travel and hang out for a couple of days.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I've known farm animals that had more brains than Stephanie Svan.

[Brive1987]

- Karen is cute. Cute people will attract more money.

Maybe, but I'd love to see Karen do that:

http://i.imgur.com/0K6YjDm.jpg

[Skep tickle]

Trigger warning for Mykeru: Another post by me about KS/BR.

Two snippets, which may be worthless but they crossed my path so I'll deposit them here:

(1) Somewhere in the past day or 2, can't remember where, someone brought up the possibility that the New Mexico court might dismiss the case due to lack of jurisdiction. (KS doesn't live there, the defamation & fraud aren't alleged to have specifically taken place in New Mexico, something like that.) On quick search, it does look like dismissal on this basis definitely does happen. That could end round 1 of BR's quest for justice, then he'd have to decide whether to file again, & where. And get a lawyer there. Ugh & argh.

(2) At JREF Forum, Cleon (a mod & long-time member there) says he/she "saw Baxter's [FB] post before he removed it. It consisted of an emailed response to Radford detailing their objections to the statement" (the retraction), & it included description of an event that Cleon says "pretty much everyone" would consider sexual assault that wasn't one BR described, but which Cleon won't describe. Quoth Cleon: "If the incident occurred as described, we're not talking about him blocking her way out of a party. It was sexual assault."

Take this with however big a grain of salt you want to. Even if Cleon is reliably reporting what he/she saw, it seems unlikely to me that MB was an eyewitness for any such event, instead seems much more likely that MB would have been repeating what KS told him had 'happened', thus presumably inadmissible as 'evidence' anywhere.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p= ... count=2544

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p= ... count=2973

[Richard Dworkins]

Speaking of desperate Pharyngula posts, just look at the latest:

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

Dana's solution is so simple and brilliant that Peezus can't see any downside to it.

So then, she's come up with a solution that will end the abortion problem.
Fantastic!

What is it?

Apparently it's the compulsory sterilization of all males (after they've stored a few vials of sperm in a deep freeze, for future planned breeding puposes.)

I can't wait until he eventually goes full retard and proposes the "brilliant solution to the problem of overpopulation" where all cishet white men except for a few "breeders" are killed to make room for the trans otherkin special snowflakes and womyn.

Sterilize all men= totes not hate speech.

Sterilize all womyn= totes hate speech.

How do I feminism?

Let's not be to hasty. While compulsory sterilisation would be an atrocity, convincing men to take control of their genetic material rather than randomly inseminate a woman and pay for it for 18 years is a great idea. It would also probably make the world a better looking place, since it is less likely that ugly women would be accidently fertilised and no one would wish the jissom of some man-troll. Due to supply and demand men could legally sell their lovemuck to the highest bidder. There would be less deadbeat parents and 2nd and third world countries would recieve an economic boost as those who could not afford good sperm or even convince a man to part with his would be taking part in "pregnancy tourism" to get knocked up by poor unsuspecting native.

Seriously though, it would give men a lot more autonomy over their genetic material.

[James Caruthers]

I've known farm animals that had more brains than Stephanie Svan.

But have you known any that weighed more?

[Brive1987]

Or she could release a single offensive email from him, a single instance of "please stop harassing me" from her, a single communication from Baxter saying "back off", a single diary entry showing she wasn't at the hotel in question in San Francisco - and tell us to wait for the trial.

Given they worked in different cities and must have communicated electronically, that shouldn't be too hard?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Quoth Cleon: "If the incident occurred as described, we're not talking about him blocking her way out of a party. It was sexual assault."

Why not have Carrie Poppy tell Pz Myers this? Joe McCarthy maybe?

Yet more innuendo and hearsay! This is a fucking witch hunt.

[welch]

Hey rorschach, tell us what you really think!

http://i.imgur.com/eRI8ZVL.jpg

bless his stupid little heart

[rayshul]

Offered without comment.

Now we just need to teach those diseases not to infect. Surely we can all get along.

I'm interested in that idea. I've sometimes thought that if you talk about FGM as barbaric, primitive and revolting, will it help stop the practice, rather than talking about it as an unfortunate part of someone's culture. Similarly if you talk about STIs as disgusting, will people be more inclined to protect themselves against them?

Generally an open question here.

[rayshul]

The disease, Rorscharch, is SJW-itus. And it's fucking everywhere.

[Avalyne]

Translation: When a woman tells you that you have oppressed her in some way, the correct response is to listen politely, be open to what she's saying, check your privilege, and make a genuine effort to change and grow. This is true even if the woman "breaks politeness protocols" and instead reacts with anger and insults. You have stepped on her foot and you have no right to get defensive when she tells you to step off, regardless of whether she asks politely or not.

http://www.psdgraphics.com/wp-content/u ... trophy.jpg

You're brilliant, I say... brilliant.

And Liesmith!! Thank you for the mini review of the classes. I think I'll pass (pun intended).
:banana-dance: :banana-jumprope: :banana-dreads:

[Dick Strawkins]

Trigger warning for Mykeru: Another post by me about KS/BR.

Two snippets, which may be worthless but they crossed my path so I'll deposit them here:

(1) Somewhere in the past day or 2, can't remember where, someone brought up the possibility that the New Mexico court might dismiss the case due to lack of jurisdiction. (KS doesn't live there, the defamation & fraud aren't alleged to have specifically taken place in New Mexico, something like that.) On quick search, it does look like dismissal on this basis definitely does happen. That could end round 1 of BR's quest for justice, then he'd have to decide whether to file again, & where. And get a lawyer there. Ugh & argh.

(2) At JREF Forum, Cleon (a mod & long-time member there) says he/she "saw Baxter's [FB] post before he removed it. It consisted of an emailed response to Radford detailing their objections to the statement" (the retraction), & it included description of an event that Cleon says "pretty much everyone" would consider sexual assault that wasn't one BR described, but which Cleon won't describe. Quoth Cleon: "If the incident occurred as described, we're not talking about him blocking her way out of a party. It was sexual assault."

Take this with however big a grain of salt you want to. Even if Cleon is reliably reporting what he/she saw, it seems unlikely to me that MB was an eyewitness for any such event, instead seems much more likely that MB would have been repeating what KS told him had 'happened', thus presumably inadmissible as 'evidence' anywhere.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p= ... count=2544

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p= ... count=2973

In Ron Lindsays post objecting to Stollznow's Scientific American blog post, Lindsay mentioned that the CFI inquiry had found Radford guilty of sexual harassment. Radford was penalized by being given a suspension of several weeks from his job.
Lindsay also wrote about how seriously the CFI take the issue of sexual assault/harassment/misconduct, and reading between the lines I get the impression that the sexual harassment was the only charge that stuck and that there was no finding of sexual assault by the inquiry (or at least no such incident that could be proven.)

Of course we don't know that the sexual harassment consisted of - it may be a conclusion based on faked emails that Stollznow presented to the inquiry to give the impression that Radford was pursuing her later than he actually was.
In which case Radford has the right to be furious.
Or it may be a conclusion based on the standing in front of her 'misunderstanding' that was mentioned in the retraction statement.
We don't know.

What we can presume, I think, is that Stollznow had a chance to put this evidence about a definite case of assault to a previous inquiry and they were not convinced.
I think I remember reading that she has witnesses to the incident, which makes it curious as to why it still wasn't enough to convince the CFI team.

If there were no witnesses and it was simply a he-said, she-said thing, then her failure to make a complaint to the proper authorities at the outset may weigh against her and this may explain why the inquiry didn't consider that charge as proven.

[Skep tickle]

I found this bit from Cleon interesting because it's the first I remember seeing from anyone about any post by Baxter that gave details, outside of Mykeru getting him to confirm some points by Twitter. Though there's been so much put up & taken down, &/or said w/o backing, that it's hard to keep up with. As above: even if there had been such a post, the validity of any story in it would be highly questionable.

[James Caruthers]

Let's not be to hasty. While compulsory sterilisation would be an atrocity, convincing men to take control of their genetic material rather than randomly inseminate a woman and pay for it for 18 years is a great idea. It would also probably make the world a better looking place, since it is less likely that ugly women would be accidently fertilised and no one would wish the jissom of some man-troll. Due to supply and demand men could legally sell their lovemuck to the highest bidder. There would be less deadbeat parents and 2nd and third world countries would recieve an economic boost as those who could not afford good sperm or even convince a man to part with his would be taking part in "pregnancy tourism" to get knocked up by poor unsuspecting native.

Seriously though, it would give men a lot more autonomy over their genetic material.

Hmm, indeed. Which is why I support it as a choice. But I do not support Peez or anyone else having the right to force that decision on others, any more than I would force a woman with no health problems to carry an unwanted child to term. I leave that choice to the individuals affected by it.

As you say, much like the "woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" and subsequent whining about where did all the good men go (and the recent rise of a formal Men Going Their Own Way movement,) I imagine that such compulsory sterilization would cause no end of hassle for women. Suddenly, it's no longer enough to sabotage birth control methods or attempt to manipulate a man via seduction into inseminating you. Now, you actually have to negotiate for the sperm which is logged at the bank which only he can access.

However, this creates other problems, such as when your sample gets lots and then whoops! suddenly you have no chance of ever fathering a child with your DNA. Unless you get a vasectomy reversal, I guess. :?

I definitely support men's right to pump and dump without consequence. I think it's safe to say there's an element of anti-woman misogyny to what PZ is saying, when you really think about who would be harmed the most. :lol: For myself, I'll probably give myself another couple of years to decide if I want kids. If nothing changes, it'll be off to the doctor.

[James Caruthers]

"sample gets lost"

[Sven DiMilo]

Chas doesn't care what they think?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

That's right; I don't. Why is that funny?

uh wait: :think: (is that a good one?)

[Skep tickle]

Offered without comment.

[.tweet][/tweet]

Now we just need to teach those diseases not to infect. Surely we can all get along.

I'm interested in that idea. I've sometimes thought that if you talk about FGM as barbaric, primitive and revolting, will it help stop the practice, rather than talking about it as an unfortunate part of someone's culture. Similarly if you talk about STIs as disgusting, will people be more inclined to protect themselves against them?

Generally an open question here.

With FGM, as I recall from reading about some successful efforts to sideline the practice, talking about it as primitive & revolting only alienates the people being talked to, & if anything drives it underground.

And don't religions tend to try the "disgusting" approach to control sex, or sex outside of the parameters they place around it? May make people ashamed but not clear how effectively it reduces the occurrence...

[Brive1987]

In Ron Lindsays post objecting to Stollznow's Scientific American blog post, Lindsay mentioned that the CFI inquiry had found Radford guilty of sexual harassment. Radford was penalized by being given a suspension of several weeks from his job.
Lindsay also wrote about how seriously the CFI take the issue of sexual assault/harassment/misconduct, and reading between the lines I get the impression that the sexual harassment was the only charge that stuck and that there was no finding of sexual assault by the inquiry (or at least no such incident that could be proven.)

Of course we don't know that the sexual harassment consisted of - it may be a conclusion based on faked emails that Stollznow presented to the inquiry to give the impression that Radford was pursuing her later than he actually was.
In which case Radford has the right to be furious.
Or it may be a conclusion based on the standing in front of her 'misunderstanding' that was mentioned in the retraction statement.
We don't know.

What we can presume, I think, is that Stollznow had a chance to put this evidence about a definite case of assault to a previous inquiry and they were not convinced.
I think I remember reading that she has witnesses to the incident, which makes it curious as to why it still wasn't enough to convince the CFI team.

If there were no witnesses and it was simply a he-said, she-said thing, then her failure to make a complaint to the proper authorities at the outset may weigh against her and this may explain why the inquiry didn't consider that charge as proven.

And Karen says:

They had found evidence of “inappropriate communications” and “inappropriate” conduct at conferences.

Now maybe she purposely underplayed the actual "sexual harassment" finding and turned it into "inappropriate conduct" because it suited her narrative (of CFI dicking her).

Certainly Lindsay did say:

Ms. Stollznow's claim is also the only one in which there was a specific finding of any sexual harassment

I note that some poor sap who hired a stripper got the chop on the spot - whereas Lindsay (while acknowledging some form of harassment) only felt that a short suspension was relevant for Radford .... :think:

He also clearly made the point (my emphasis):

Ms. (sic) Stollznow's false claims can be expected to have an adverse impact on our ability to raise funds.

http://web.archive.org/web/201308170838 ... _american/