another lurker wrote:I just spent the last 5 hours lumbersexualing and I can barely walk. My back is sore and my hands are frozen. I don't wear plaid when I do it. I do, however, wear a nice warm "Dickies" quilted fleece jacket and sweats.
I've been watching a true lumbersexual at work this last few days. Nine days ago:
...
Nothing but his bare teeth. Beat that manlets!
I bet Jen McCreight could get that tree down in just 5 days!
another lurker wrote:I just finished watching a program on the Battle of Bannockburn.According to various chroniclers, Robert the Bruce split the skull of a rival knight with an axe to the face. The pointy end will go right through the metal helmet and fuck you up good.
Wasn't that the battle conducted shortly after the execution of William Wallace when Robert the Bruce and his Scottish forces were going to formally capitulate to the English but attacked them instead? I get all of my Scottish history information from Braveheart. Hopefully this demonstration of knowledge will atone for my earlier haggis missteps. ;)
another lurker wrote:I just finished watching a program on the Battle of Bannockburn. According to various chroniclers, Robert the Bruce split the skull of a rival knight with an axe to the face. The pointy end will go right through the metal helmet and fuck you up good.
another lurker wrote:I just spent the last 5 hours lumbersexualing and I can barely walk. My back is sore and my hands are frozen. I don't wear plaid when I do it. I do, however, wear a nice warm "Dickies" quilted fleece jacket and sweats.
I've been watching a true lumbersexual at work this last few days. Nine days ago:
Flextight1039.jpg
Two days ago:
L1000323.jpg
Today:
L1000327-2.jpg
Nothing but his bare teeth. Beat that manlets!
And they can live in near arctic conditions, create engineering marvels of nature. Cool rodents.
another lurker wrote:I just spent the last 5 hours lumbersexualing and I can barely walk. My back is sore and my hands are frozen. I don't wear plaid when I do it. I do, however, wear a nice warm "Dickies" quilted fleece jacket and sweats.
I've been watching a true lumbersexual at work this last few days. Nine days ago:
Flextight1039.jpg
Two days ago:
L1000323.jpg
Today:
L1000327-2.jpg
Nothing but his bare teeth. Beat that manlets!
And they can live in near arctic conditions, create engineering marvels of nature. Cool rodents.
They were introduced to South America to rev up the fur trade, and since they have no natural predators they have overrun the country and their dams routinely cause *massive* landslides.
blueshiftrhino wrote:I'm not as impressed. Most of all, the value of a semi-partial (which is what the gender effect in this study boils down to) depends entirely on what other variables were also in the model.
I don't think this is true.
There are many kinds of MRC. This was something close to stepwise in that only some variables were retained for the final model. Thus, when they got around to their final three models, they included nothing other than the one winner plus sex. In this way, they did not control for anything else, because everything else had been dropped.
More generally, the description of the analysis makes me rather nervous. When someone describes their multi-predictor model using r^2 (with that being a lower-case r), I start to have huge doubts about their competence, as the correct label is R^2 (with an upper-case R).
Of course, the authors are women, so I discount the paper by several points automatically. tee hee
jugheadnaut wrote:
It seems to be a long-term trend in popular entertainment in general to have one-note, irredeemably evil villains. I was watching the Hunger Games movies recently and was frustrated how there was no attempt whatsoever to provide nuance or back story on how President Snow became so evil. Perhaps they were waiting to do so in the completion of the trilogy? Nope, I checked the wiki and apparently he just spawned that way.
Have you read the books? There's more background on Snow.
I don't see him as evil, so much as convinced the ends justify the means, and the end is to preserve the system and class structure he believes is right.
The first film presented the 'career' tributes, Cato for example, as human and complex. But that was Gary Ross. He always does a beautiful job with subtlety in characters.
I haven't read the books since they are considered 'young adult' literature and I probably can do better with my limited reading time. I watched the movies because the reviews were pretty good and I wanted to have some knowledge of something that's become a pop culture phenomenon. I give both movies a mixed review. The production quality and much of the acting seem to greatly outstrip the source material. However, I thought Jennifer Lawrence was pretty bad in the first half of Catching Fire, which surprised me because I've liked her in everything else I've seen her in. But she redeemed herself in the second half when she could let her emotions flow.
As I mentioned, I found the lack of nuance and back story a serious impediment to my enjoyment of the movies, so I checked out the wiki (because the basic story is uninteresting to me, I wasn't overly concerned with spoilers). Here's the article on President Snow. There's no nuance or mitigation there, he's just plain a nasty shit. I guess whether you want to use the word 'evil' is a matter of semantics. History's worst malefactors, including Hitler, thought they were acting in the name of some greater good. This doesn't mean they weren't evil, at least by my definition.
jugheadnaut wrote:
It seems to be a long-term trend in popular entertainment in general to have one-note, irredeemably evil villains. I was watching the Hunger Games movies recently and was frustrated how there was no attempt whatsoever to provide nuance or back story on how President Snow became so evil. Perhaps they were waiting to do so in the completion of the trilogy? Nope, I checked the wiki and apparently he just spawned that way.
Have you read the books? There's more background on Snow.
I don't see him as evil, so much as convinced the ends justify the means, and the end is to preserve the system and class structure he believes is right.
The first film presented the 'career' tributes, Cato for example, as human and complex. But that was Gary Ross. He always does a beautiful job with subtlety in characters.
I haven't read the books since they are considered 'young adult' literature and I probably can do better with my limited reading time. I watched the movies because the reviews were pretty good and I wanted to have some knowledge of something that's become a pop culture phenomenon. I give both movies a mixed review. The production quality and much of the acting seem to greatly outstrip the source material. However, I thought Jennifer Lawrence was pretty bad in the first half of Catching Fire, which surprised me because I've liked her in everything else I've seen her in. But she redeemed herself in the second half when she could let her emotions flow.
As I mentioned, I found the lack of nuance and back story a serious impediment to my enjoyment of the movies, so I checked out the wiki (because the basic story is uninteresting to me, I wasn't overly concerned with spoilers). Here's the article on President Snow. There's no nuance or mitigation there, he's just plain a nasty shit. I guess whether you want to use the word 'evil' is a matter of semantics. History's worst malefactors, including Hitler, thought they were acting in the name of some greater good. This doesn't mean they weren't evil, at least by my definition.
I saw Catching Fire for the first time just a few days ago. What stood out like a sore thumb for me was Catniss' additute toward Peeta. All cold shoulder until they got into the arena, and then she was all over him. Can someone who's read the books explain this to me? Why did her feelings turn on a dime? And why did she want him to escape the arena with her?
blueshiftrhino wrote:I'm not as impressed. Most of all, the value of a semi-partial (which is what the gender effect in this study boils down to) depends entirely on what other variables were also in the model.
I don't think this is true.
There are many kinds of MRC. This was something close to stepwise in that only some variables were retained for the final model. Thus, when they got around to their final three models, they included nothing other than the one winner plus sex. In this way, they did not control for anything else, because everything else had been dropped.
I don't see how you can determine this from the actual text of the paper (which is technically a peer-reviewed commentary rather than a full paper, making it short on details). I'm assuming the statistical analysis described was done competently. And even before the application of heavy duty statistics, the data is highly suggestive.
BlueShiftRhino wrote:
Of course, the authors are women, so I discount the paper by several points automatically. tee hee
Did you notice the postscript on the paper:
Nature adds: This article was peer-reviewed by three males
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Riker was galaxo-sexual. He'd fuck anything. He once fucked a 'Pat' from a unisexual 'Pat' species who had eggs for babies. Hell, if Riker went to Skepchickcon, he'd probably even fuck Surly Amy.
No way. Captain Kirk wouldn't even fuck Surly Amy. I don't even think Captain Jack Harkness would touch her either!
Captain Janeway would fuck Surly Amy, if that meant to cause pain and suffering to her crew.
bovarchist wrote:OK, I just noticed I got flamed by Cracked commenters for using the term 'stone-age' to describe uncontacted tribes. 21 downvotes and counting. Apparently intent is magic.
LOL
Serves them right. I used to enjoy Cracked but they became Jezebel some time ago. I don't need to read "10 Reasons Why Cis-Het-White Men Suck" or "Why Women Are Awesome ".
Even Seanbaby was bashing on #Gamergate, although that's to be expected (he's a indy developer AND he worked on EGM).
ERV wrote:Rebecca Watson has travelled 7,000 miles to Hong Kong, population >7 million, 0.8% white.
She will talk about nothing with a dozen white people.
I don't even know how that is statistically possible.
#stuffwhitepeoplelike
And while she's doing that, the evil mysoginists managing that rapist probe found organic molecules on the comet, maybe shedding the first lights over the "how life became possible on Earth?" millennial question. But by all means, Twatson, fly to Hong Kong to share the Elevatorgate story for the umptenth time, you disgraceful cunt.
another lurker wrote:Ok, fuck anyone who mocks me for implying that South America is a country. Fuck y'all y'all!!
Actually, when you look at it, there's not much of a difference between South American countries' dramas: government corruption and inefficiency, poverty, insufficient education, etc. etc.
If you can just solve the Avocado Dillema diving Brazil and the Spanish talking countries, then we could be a single continental country. Well, that, and then maybe someone bothers to learn something about both Guianas and Suriname, who I swear to PZ The Tentacle Rape Hentai God most people forget about when talking about the continent.
jugheadnaut wrote:I'm assuming the statistical analysis described was done competently.
Assuming that psychologists or sociologists (or worse) are competent statisticians is something that I've been taught not to do. I was taught this by reviewing their papers.
Rat Bastard wrote:Time for me to go to bed, gotta work in the morning. And that, for those who have been following the thread at FA, is why people call me Rat Bastard
Lsuoma wrote:another lurker - wmdshitty's comment is gone now.
The comment is still there. KD just replied to it. Disqus sometimes takes a moment to highlight the comment
I've been flagging her posts and I e-mailed Hemant asking him to do something about it. I have no idea if that email has even been read, or if Hemant or Rachel are inclined to stop wmdkitty, but they have been deleting her doxxing posts. She's just going to keep on doing it and bizarrely insisting it isn't doxxing and that it's the pit that doxxes. It appears to be pretty transparent and actually works in our favor. The one or two commenters who were responding positively to Wmdkitty in the beginning are being swayed towards our point of view.
Southern wrote:And while she's doing that, the evil mysoginists managing that rapist probe found organic molecules on the comet, maybe shedding the first lights over the "how life became possible on Earth?" millennial question.
I saw that headline, too. Then I read the details. They found carbon. That's it (so far). No actually organic molecules.
Also funny was how the article said that "carbon is the basis of all life." Project much? Carbon is the basis of all known life, shitlord.
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Riker was galaxo-sexual. He'd fuck anything. He once fucked a 'Pat' from a unisexual 'Pat' species who had eggs for babies. Hell, if Riker went to Skepchickcon, he'd probably even fuck Surly Amy.
No way. Captain Kirk wouldn't even fuck Surly Amy. I don't even think Captain Jack Harkness would touch her either!
Captain Janeway would fuck Surly Amy, if that meant to cause pain and suffering to her crew.
But then she would exploit some time/space anomaly and the fuck would never have happened and everything would be back the way it was at the beginning of the episode.
Lsuoma wrote:another lurker - wmdshitty's comment is gone now.
The comment is still there. KD just replied to it. Disqus sometimes takes a moment to highlight the comment
I've been flagging her posts and I e-mailed Hemant asking him to do something about it. I have no idea if that email has even been read, or if Hemant or Rachel are inclined to stop wmdkitty, but they have been deleting her doxxing posts. She's just going to keep on doing it and bizarrely insisting it isn't doxxing and that it's the pit that doxxes. It appears to be pretty transparent and actually works in our favor. The one or two commenters who were responding positively to Wmdkitty in the beginning are being swayed towards our point of view.
Your comments were great, and MosesZD is also making a great case for the pit.
Hemant usually checks his emails. I had to email him once, and I got an answer within an hour.
another lurker wrote:Ok, fuck anyone who mocks me for implying that South America is a country. Fuck y'all y'all!!
Actually, when you look at it, there's not much of a difference between South American countries' dramas: government corruption and inefficiency, poverty, insufficient education, etc. etc.
If you can just solve the Avocado Dillema diving Brazil and the Spanish talking countries, then we could be a single continental country. Well, that, and then maybe someone bothers to learn something about both Guianas and Suriname, who I swear to PZ The Tentacle Rape Hentai God most people forget about when talking about the continent.
dogen wrote:
I haven't read the books since they are considered 'young adult' literature and I probably can do better with my limited reading time. I watched the movies because the reviews were pretty good and I wanted to have some knowledge of something that's become a pop culture phenomenon. I give both movies a mixed review. The production quality and much of the acting seem to greatly outstrip the source material. However, I thought Jennifer Lawrence was pretty bad in the first half of Catching Fire, which surprised me because I've liked her in everything else I've seen her in. But she redeemed herself in the second half when she could let her emotions flow.
As I mentioned, I found the lack of nuance and back story a serious impediment to my enjoyment of the movies, so I checked out the wiki (because the basic story is uninteresting to me, I wasn't overly concerned with spoilers). Here's the article on President Snow. There's no nuance or mitigation there, he's just plain a nasty shit. I guess whether you want to use the word 'evil' is a matter of semantics. History's worst malefactors, including Hitler, thought they were acting in the name of some greater good. This doesn't mean they weren't evil, at least by my definition.
I saw Catching Fire for the first time just a few days ago. What stood out like a sore thumb for me was Catniss' additute toward Peeta. All cold shoulder until they got into the arena, and then she was all over him. Can someone who's read the books explain this to me? Why did her feelings turn on a dime? And why did she want him to escape the arena with her?[/quote]
I didn't care much for the first movie, so I haven't seen the second, but a friend of mine is a big fan of the books and she said that Katniss plays up the Peeta romance when they're on camera together because it's popular with the audience and endears her to them.
jugheadnaut wrote:I'm assuming the statistical analysis described was done competently.
Assuming that psychologists or sociologists (or worse) are competent statisticians is something that I've been taught not to do. I was taught this by reviewing their papers.
In this case the authors are biologists and they had a (male ;) ) statistical advisor. Maybe that's why this paper is much more sophisticated than the usual tripe on this subject.
dogen wrote:
I saw Catching Fire for the first time just a few days ago. What stood out like a sore thumb for me was Catniss' additute toward Peeta. All cold shoulder until they got into the arena, and then she was all over him. Can someone who's read the books explain this to me? Why did her feelings turn on a dime? And why did she want him to escape the arena with her?
I've read the books. In part, she's a moody teen-ager with some serious family issues. But there is back-story and a lot of it has to do with remaining isolated to prevent emotional hurts to herself and the fact that when her father died, not only did her family almost starve to death, but her mother has serious problems for years and was, basically, completely out of it leaving Katniss to be the head of the family way too young. So, issues.
Peeta, btw, deliberately burned bread in the family bakery (knowing he'd be beaten) to give Katniss food during the 'starving to death' period.
Also, Peeta's father had a major thing for Katniss' mom. And Peeta had a crush on her from his kindergarten days. There are some other things that would spoil the 3rd & 4th movies. So, read the book or just suffer in not knowing... :)
katamari Damassi wrote:I didn't care much for the first movie, so I haven't seen the second, but a friend of mine is a big fan of the books and she said that Katniss plays up the Peeta romance when they're on camera together because it's popular with the audience and endears her to them.
I'm not a fan, but I have a teenage daughter.
Katniss is required to play up the Peeta romance when on camera because that's the deal that she made with Snow at the end of the first book/movie. To avoid what she and Peeta did (at the end of the 74th Hunger Games) from becoming a huge embarrassment to the capital and Snow, she agree to keep playing at being love-sick with Peeta.
The Snow character is a bit more fleshed out in the book and almost sympathetic until mid-way through the second book. He is trying to hold an unworkable situation together. It's a parallel to end-stage Soviet Union, I believe - at least, that's how I took it.
jugheadnaut wrote:I'm assuming the statistical analysis described was done competently.
Assuming that psychologists or sociologists (or worse) are competent statisticians is something that I've been taught not to do. I was taught this by reviewing their papers.
In this case the authors are biologists and they had a (male ;) ) statistical advisor. Maybe that's why this paper is much more sophisticated than the usual tripe on this subject.
dogen wrote:
I saw Catching Fire for the first time just a few days ago. What stood out like a sore thumb for me was Catniss' additute toward Peeta. All cold shoulder until they got into the arena, and then she was all over him. Can someone who's read the books explain this to me? Why did her feelings turn on a dime? And why did she want him to escape the arena with her?
My understanding is that the cold shoulder is a friendzone: she's trying to establish distance because she knows he loves her and she doesn't share those feelings, even though she greatly likes him as a friend. In the arena a big protective instinct takes over because she knows he's no match for most of the other combatants. Her feelings for him may also have grown during the time they had to act as though they were in love.
Kitty, as much I've come to admire you, I have to STRONGLY and categorically denounce your viewpoint. The fact I claim to be Christian and yet I keep having sex with women who aren't my wife, that's MY shit to deal with.
Rape is NOT "somebody's shit to deal with". He committed a crime not only against his victims, but against society. He lost the right to privately handle his business when he raped those girls. When Hemant or Terry or Camille or Rachel posts about some punk-ass degenerate pastor who abused someone, nobody says "well it's his shit to work out." When another Catholic priest is revealed as having molested kids, nobody says "it's his shit to work out."
I'm not calling for the guy to face the death penalty. Hell, I feel great sympathy for his plight as a fellow abuse victim (though NOWHERE near that level). But to allow him to not even face the law is a complete spit in the face of all that you and I believe in.
And it's not just about revenge and retribution. In the case of a rapist, his victims and the other women he'll encounter in his life have a right to have something other than his word he won't rape again; to get confirmation from a state authority that can declare he's reformed.
It's a fucked up situation, I know. But seriously, you can see how utterly unfeasible it is to allow a rapist to "sort his own shit out"
I think we need more people flagging that asshole's posts. She's just going to keep using Skep's name. I don't think FA is going to ban her and they don't pay enough attention to their comments section to delete the name quickly enough.
Hemant emailed me again. Said he would normally ban the doxxed but wmdkitty is a long time commenter on his blog, so he's going to send her a warning. I still see Skep's name in that comment thread.
I'm not taking it seriously. I'm just playing along with you the last couple of posts. Maybe I need to use more emoticons. ;)
In summary, I'm just giving credit where it's due. This is a good paper, but its scope is tiny. As far as gender discrimination in science goes, the study is nothing more than suggestive. The fact that there haven't been similar results nearly 20 years later suggests to me to that these results couldn't be duplicated and this is probably a one-off outlier.
Photos from Rebecca's trip are starting to trickle in - looks like she figured out the mass-transit system over there, but she's having trouble getting along with the locals.
CuntajusRationality wrote:Photos from Rebecca's trip are starting to trickle in - looks like she figured out the mass-transit system over there, but she's having trouble getting along with the locals.
It's 25°F, on the waterfront, parked between the Queensbridge Projects¹ and the Tom Cat Bakery-- where I grabbed some buttery rolls & a loaf of raisin bread from the dumpster, earlier. Crumbs in bed, now.
In honor of ConcentratedH20, I've got "Good Thoughts, Bad Thoughts" playing in another browser window, and you should, too².
My dog is warm under the blanket with me & I've got the space heater plugged into a streetlight. I wouldn't be noticing the cold, if I hadn't, for no good reason at all, thrown-away the A-frame puptent made from 2 sheets of 4-ply cardboard, previously above the bed. That thing stopped drafts, retained body heat, & folded-up flat against the wall when it was time to haul cargo.
For additional warmth, I've got a bottle of Absolut Elyx, "manually crafted in a 1921 Copper column still", a party favor I grabbed from a $1,500/plate gala; a couple weeks ago. The attendees were like the bad guys in Hunger Games. They smashed their soup bowls in a sticky pit, and the meal ended with diners being handed hammers-- to smash open their tables & find bon-bons inside. The waiters were bareass male dancers in jockstraps & chaps, with color-guard flag-harnesses & stalks of roasted brussels-sprouts as flag/cocks³.
But my dog enjoyed the leftover suckling pig carcass, from Cindy Sherman & Marina Abromovic's table. Their cup runneth over, to the tune of 22.5 cases of Peroni beer & 5 cases of wine, leftover from the event... inherited by me.
The next day I gave-away all 540 beers. One case to the staff at the diner where I take morning coffee and morning shit, one case for the gym where I shower, a 12 pack or wine bottle for anyone at the dog park who wanted one, the motorcycle shop over the Pulaski Bridge, the Fast&Furious tires'n'rims shop in Jamaica Queens, many cases the 3 smiling dreamgirls with the scrappy-little gallery in a defunct 99-cent shop in Bushwisk (for the guests at their art openings), a handtruck-load to the drag-queen bartender at basement performance space on the L.E.S. (where the Living Theatre used to be).
The booze giveaway was a good investment-- I'm greeted with huge smiles, everywhere I go. It's like I have a great set of tits & I'm walking around nyc for 10 hours. The tire shop gave me a free tire change yesterday, and I'm now 'sponsored' with their decal on the truck. Although-- the diner is making me comfortable by being =too= grateful. I miss their normal surlyness. So I told 'em the only thanks I want is to not pay the dime anymore, on their $1.10 coffee. The best giveaway was a single beer shared with an ceramics-studio intern, who turned-out to be a handful of months out of high school. Oops, I thought her Nickelodean "nick at night" jean jacket was ironic. Sorry not sorry. My wild summer of Tinder dating is far behind me now, so little moments like beer are my new thrill.
So *cheers* to the Hunger Games Rich Folks' largess. Next, I'm supposed to drive a vanload of their art to Miami for Art Basel, for five grand. I'm very nervous about whether the van will endure the trip. If I make it, I'll then help build a dance performance set in the old Miami Beach Playboy Club, and will work as a stagehand for 5 performances.â´
This morning, the awesome gay clinic repaired my crown free of charge. During intake, I marked "Yes" for the question about my status as a Migrant Worker, and circled "Street" under the multiple-choice about Homelessness. Afterward, I helped a tranny hooker enroll for healthcare & I was pissed at SJWs when the tranny worried about not being eligible for "Transgender Health Services"... on the basis of not, techincally, being "transgender". This what it has come to: a Tranny Hooker With AIDS thinks he doesn't qualify for medical care at the West Village clinic built on donations from the wills of dead 80's guys with AIDS... because SJWs told him he isn't, according to what they were taught in college, "Transgender". AND he's not allowed to call HIMSELF a tranny anymore. Fuck. But... I got him enrolled. Patriarchy wins again.
So, next it's Miami or Bust, with 'bust' a very real possibility. Don't call me Ratzo when we get down there, ok Joe-Buck? Oh no, I think I just peed my pants.
another lurker wrote:Kitty just doxxed skep AGAIN. I flagged the comment. Someone should email Hemant and ask him to either give her a stern warning or, as KD suggested, ban her ass.
What is the actual context they're using to support the 'she doxxed herself' narrative? I thought the course of events ran from ST mentioning her first name and obliquely where she worked, giving Svan enough details to put 2 and 2 together [a challenging mathematical equation for her no doubt] and doxx her full name, after which ST basically said 'yes she doxxed me' confirmation on heathen-hub?
another lurker wrote:Kitty just doxxed skep AGAIN. I flagged the comment. Someone should email Hemant and ask him to either give her a stern warning or, as KD suggested, ban her ass.
What is the actual context they're using to support the 'she doxxed herself' narrative? I thought the course of events ran from ST mentioning her first name and obliquely where she worked, giving Svan enough details to put 2 and 2 together [a challenging mathematical equation for her no doubt] and doxx her full name, after which ST basically said 'yes she doxxed me' confirmation on heathen-hub?
I thought the "She doxxed herself" claim from the fact that she signed up to the freethoughtsblog forum with her real email address. And if the admins of free thought blogs have access to your email, well fuck, the whole world does too now.
katamari Damassi wrote:That wmdkitty scumbag just will not stop. She drops Skep's name at every opportunity.
Well of course.
Sort of like how you'll never hear a reference to thunderfoot coming from FTB that doesn't include his full legal name.
I'll give them a bit of leeway on that since TF basically self-doxxed after he got doxxed by a butthurt muslim a few times, but it was on a random video at his youtube channel and he doesn't throw around his personal info like candy or use his position as a bully pulpit to try to get people fired.
Unlike Melody Hensley: Official SpokesBully for CFI
another lurker wrote:Kitty just doxxed skep AGAIN. I flagged the comment. Someone should email Hemant and ask him to either give her a stern warning or, as KD suggested, ban her ass.
What is the actual context they're using to support the 'she doxxed herself' narrative? I thought the course of events ran from ST mentioning her first name and obliquely where she worked, giving Svan enough details to put 2 and 2 together [a challenging mathematical equation for her no doubt] and doxx her full name, after which ST basically said 'yes she doxxed me' confirmation on heathen-hub?
I thought the "She doxxed herself" claim from the fact that she signed up to the freethoughtsblog forum with her real email address. And if the admins of free thought blogs have access to your email, well fuck, the whole world does too now.
I found a link (can't recall where) to a forum in which ST posts her nym and her real name. So, the 'self-doxxing' claim is not totally without merit. However, it's not clear whether this forum post would have become widely visible if it weren't for the actions of FTB.
