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

MarcusAu wrote:And if someone wants to leave christianity because the wine was cheap and they were skimping on the budget for bread, or because they found the whole thing boring, or for whatever trivial reason - I don't have a problem with that. Obviously, whatever deeper meaning they were expecting to gain from it was not provided, and they felt their time was best spent elsewhere.

In additional defense of "finding it boring," that whole boredom leads to another question "Why the hell are we here in the first place." Which leads to other questions. Mass twice a week, leaves plenty of plenty of think time when you are bored and dying for something intelligent to think about. Then you start analyzing exactly what they are saying and what you are actually supposed to believe.

Skep tickle wrote:

comhcinc wrote:I mean if they are having hardships for other reasons or people want to help them advance out of the iron age cool, but if it's lack of shoves and well building knowledge? No we have to let those people go.

Maybe because they have traditionally lived in rain forests and been hunter-gatherers?

Yes. That's basically why. No socio-economical system is the best in every situation. It's all a matter of adaptation. Until fairly recently rain forests could only support a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. You need to tear down the forest to start an agricultural society.

Also the soil of rain forests are poor of humus and other nutrients due to rapid bacterial decay, since forests are extremely hot and wet. Even if you cut down a rain forest you need to burn some organic material to create a layer of cultivable soil, and after a few years you're left with a largely unproductive terrain.

Pygmies have survived just fine with a basic hunter-gatherer tribe-based lifestyle. If they're having problems down it's because the population in their countries has rapidly increased and so has the agricultural/mining use of African rain forests. More people need to be fed, and world economy needs more and more resources.

In general "traditional" societies all over the world are suffering because they've been thrust into modernity due to technological developments and demographic trends. This is by and large inevitable. The only solutions which would preserve traditions would be a large scale extermination of several hundreds of million of people (if not several billions) and a return to the traditional lifestyle by abandoning technology. Few people want this to happen, for very understandable reasons, so if you're interesting in reducing the suffering of people in "traditional" societies you need to start and guide a slow process of modernization.

Skep tickle wrote:

deLurch wrote:

BarnOwl wrote:20 out of 50 here, so neurotypical as fuck. :bjarte:

Bastard. 22 out of 50.

26/50. There was no neutral or "neither" option (on purpose) but I could have gone either way on some of the questions.

Also, going to a theater means sitting in the dark for 2 hours watching whatever's put in front of you, whereas in a museum it's light and you get to walk around, looking at whatever you decide what you want to look at (among the things there). So because the question didn't specify that the person responding gets to pick the theater performance, I chose museum. :snooty:

I suspect this web diagnosis tool is not very scientific. The difference between 'somewhat' and 'very' is arbitrary and likely to vary between individuals. Many of the questions could have been put more simply as "are you an aspie".

I have been fretting over this for some hours now.

HunnyBunny wrote:I'm taking this quote by Ashley Miller as confirmation that Carrier fucks 18 yr olds.

I recognize that if you are a 46 year old man having affairs with women in their late teens and early twenties you are remarkably immature and short sighted but it's difficult to imagine being so immature and short sighted that he would air that shit as though it would humiliate anyone but him.

Yeah if Ashley says it, that's gold for me too.

I suspect now that Shermer may have been rubbing Carrier under his table.

Kirbmarc wrote:

Skep tickle wrote:

comhcinc wrote:I mean if they are having hardships for other reasons or people want to help them advance out of the iron age cool, but if it's lack of shoves and well building knowledge? No we have to let those people go.

Maybe because they have traditionally lived in rain forests and been hunter-gatherers?

Yes. That's basically why. No socio-economical system is the best in every situation. It's all a matter of adaptation. Until fairly recently rain forests could only support a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. You need to tear down the forest to start an agricultural society.

Also the soil of rain forests are poor of humus and other nutrients due to rapid bacterial decay, since forests are extremely hot and wet. Even if you cut down a rain forest you need to burn some organic material to create a layer of cultivable soil, and after a few years you're left with a largely unproductive terrain.

Pygmies have survived just fine with a basic hunter-gatherer tribe-based lifestyle. If they're having problems down it's because the population in their countries has rapidly increased and so has the agricultural/mining use of African rain forests. More people need to be fed, and world economy needs more and more resources.

In general "traditional" societies all over the world are suffering because they've been thrust into modernity due to technological developments and demographic trends. This is by and large inevitable. The only solutions which would preserve traditions would be a large scale extermination of several hundreds of million of people (if not several billions) and a return to the traditional lifestyle by abandoning technology. Few people want this to happen, for very understandable reasons, so if you're interesting in reducing the suffering of people in "traditional" societies you need to start and guide a slow process of modernization.

Where the fuck did all these Pygmy experts come from?

My 2c is that the little nuggets need to adapt to the first world and deliver quantifiable value.

http://img.cinemablend.com/cb/5/b/e/0/4 ... 2bccc3.gif

Brive1987 wrote:
I suspect this web diagnosis tool is not very scientific. The difference between 'somewhat' and 'very' is arbitrary and likely to vary between individuals. Many of the questions could have been put more simply as "are you an aspie".

I have been fretting over this for some hours now.

I was somewhat inclined to believe that you were very likely to say that.

Also, I think your opinion on web diagnosis may change after reading that last sentence. Surely, some conclusion can be drawn as to personality type.

Brive1987 wrote:
I suspect this web diagnosis tool is not very scientific. The difference between 'somewhat' and 'very' is arbitrary and likely to vary between individuals. Many of the questions could have been put more simply as "are you an aspie".

I have been fretting over this for some hours now.

This. Having dealt with the actual testing I can say I wouldn't put any faith into these 50 questions. As a parent I was asked around 400 questions about my son and then he went through about 16 hours of different test.

You people are fine.

MarcusAu wrote:

Brive1987 wrote:
I suspect this web diagnosis tool is not very scientific. The difference between 'somewhat' and 'very' is arbitrary and likely to vary between individuals. Many of the questions could have been put more simply as "are you an aspie".

I have been fretting over this for some hours now.

I was somewhat inclined to believe that you were very likely to say that.

Also, I think your opinion on web diagnosis may change after reading that last sentence. Surely, some conclusion can be drawn as to personality type.

I wish I could discern your meaning here.

Question, does Richard Carrier count as a public figure?

Most people don't know him. But he has published 7 books, with an 8th on its way in October. And he has often received public speaking gigs because people know him. And he certainly tries to present himself as a public figure.

Benson is still blogging in a machine gun spray of thought farts. Lucky to get more than 3 comments these days.

She's the original old man shouting their anger at an empty street.

Skep tickle wrote:

Links to: http://heatst.com/culture-wars/progress ... t-hashtag/

This seems to be the open letter mentioned:

(I thought I saw something here within the past few weeks about this infighting, but now can't locate it)

Good find.

Growing up one of the key differences in the left and the right in America has aways been that the right has been willing to get on message. In fact this is the first time I have seen any real cracks with the "Never Trump" people, and even then it's a small number who are outright making those statements. But for the most part now that it's Trump on the ticket, Trump is being supported.

While I understand the thinking in doing that and can respect it, I have always respected the left's instance of putting principles before party. Even if often it's retard principles. That has also seemed to change this go around. I am seeing a whole lot of support Hillary or else stuff and I am not sure it's going to work.

deLurch wrote:Question, does Richard Carrier count as a public figure?

Most people don't know him. But he has published 7 books, with an 8th on its way in October. And he has often received public speaking gigs because people know him. And he certainly tries to present himself as a public figure.

Yes. Public figure doesn't really mean popular or well known. It means you are a person that attempts to be in the public's eye. As you stated he writes books and actively pursues public speaker engagements.

deLurch wrote:

BarnOwl wrote:20 out of 50 here, so neurotypical as fuck. :bjarte:

Bastard. 22 out of 50.

I think that you mean Bustard.

rayshul wrote:

BarnOwl wrote:

Easy J wrote:
That post hit a little close to home, so I found an online autism test & gave it a go.

https://psychology-tools.com/autism-spe ... /score.php

"Your score was 39 out of a possible 50. Scores in the 33-50 range indicate significant autistic traits (autism)."

Thinking of following up on this. It sure would explain a lot & might make a handy weapon when neurotypicals forget their privilege. Anyone know of any cheap but respectable ways to test for this?

20 out of 50 here, so neurotypical as fuck. :bjarte:

I got 12 out of 50, and I'm constantly accused of being autistic. For fuck all good reason, I'm just a very practical person.

I was not surprised to score 30 out of 50.

*shrug*

However, I have a lifetime of practice under my belt so when called upon to do so, I can manage to navigate social situations fairly well. As long as I have some time to rest and recharge in between bouts that is.

For example, yesterday I attended a wedding (why I am back in Ontario) in horse and buggy territory where the number of women not wearing a headscarf I could have counted on the fingers of one hand.

I had a really good time. The entertainment was all live performances (these people do not watch TV or listen to radio at home) and included a performance of Der Spiegel (Mozart).

[youtube]M8QIaV9ilWc[/youtube]

MacGruberKnows wrote:

free thoughtpolice wrote: The thing is... who are you going to believe?
L just wanted to surprise Rick by dropping in to his place and surprising him with a nice rabbit stew.
And then this woman came up all emotional and stuff...

Reminds me of a scene from Local Hero

Preamble:
The two men injure a rabbit on the way to the small town. One guy names it Trudy after an old girlfriend. They give it to the hotel guy to take care of it and then they go to the dining room for dinner:

[youtube]tinUaAmcGLg[/youtube]

That was a great movie. I really loved it.

deLurch wrote:

fuzzy wrote:I speak from experience when I tell you that being sued by an amateur, or rather an amateur who has found a low ranking member of the bar who is willing to pass through filings for them into the for a few c notes, can be more expensive to fight than a real lawyer, because the judge will often indulge the mistakes and let them try again.

Richard does not have to have a lawyer as a pass through conduit in the US. He can completely represent himself.

And as far as judges indulging him, he lives in Ohio now. The judge will warn him about self representing, and from there on he wouldn't be able to get a word in edgewise. The judge will be more concerned about making a misstep in front of a real lawyer. I've seen tenants get eaten alive in a housing court because they couldn't say a word without getting challenged and supported by the judge.

If you are going to play the game, you had better know the rules. ALL of the rules.

And costing the other fellow three hundred an hour for a lawyer as this happens.

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote: 20 out of 50 here, so neurotypical as fuck. :bjarte:

16 out of 50, you weirdo.[/quote]


Your score was 8 out of a possible 50.
Scores in the 0 - 25 range indicate little or no Autistic traits.

People always think accountants aren't social. But if you're going to be an accountant, you have to be social since communication, not the tedium of bean counting, is the most important focus of your job. All the bean-counting in the world will do you no good if you can't communicate it quickly and effectively, which includes all the social niceties.

comhcinc wrote:

rayshul wrote:

comhcinc wrote:Why don't pygmy understand how to dig their own wells.

It just seems that at this point in history people should at least get the "building a well for fresh water".

I'm going to guess lack of tools (I read a bit more as that confused me too and they have to use a machine to find water, then other things to dig) and likely basic lack of agricultural knowledge as well.

How have they survived for an odd hundred thousand years without tools and basic agricultural knowledge?


I mean if they are having hardships for other reasons or people want to help them advance out of the iron age cool, but if it's lack of shoves and well building knowledge? No we have to let those people go.

It's not that easy. Sure, it's easy to criticize because you won the civilization lottery. But to actually build a proper well is not easy. Especially if you don't want it to kill you in one of the many ways it can.

Tribble wrote:
It's not that easy. Sure, it's easy to criticize because you won the civilization lottery. But to actually build a proper well is not easy. Especially if you don't want it to kill you in one of the many ways it can.

What do you mean it's not that easy? People, including Africans, have been doing it for thousands of years. I honestly think that is over simplifying what is happening.

Skep tickle wrote:

deLurch wrote:

BarnOwl wrote:20 out of 50 here, so neurotypical as fuck. :bjarte:

Bastard. 22 out of 50.

26/50. There was no neutral or "neither" option (on purpose) but I could have gone either way on some of the questions.

Also, going to a theater means sitting in the dark for 2 hours watching whatever's put in front of you, whereas in a museum it's light and you get to walk around, looking at whatever you decide what you want to look at (among the things there). So because the question didn't specify that the person responding gets to pick the theater performance, I chose museum. :snooty:

Same. 26/50. I would like to have discussed my reasons for margin calls with the "interviewer". A bit like with Myers Briggs, "it depends" determines the answer. I also tend to see word patterns rather than number patterns.

I enjoy going to museums, and annoy my wife off by wanting to read all the interpretation. I also enjoy going to the theatre, but very rarely independently choose to go. Now, I'm definitely in if theatre includes the movies. I call that a date, while my wife thinks otherwise.

Do you like Pina coladas?

The fall and reconstruction of Carrier is just too perfect. Suddenly all those traditional procedures, you know, the ones SJWs thought were superfluous like due process, and due process-like investigations, independence, lack of bias, evidence, witnesses, the suspension of judgement until conclusion, the consideration of all possibilities (like false allegation), they all seem very very important now. But Richard, the game is afoot; now is the perfect time to launch a Bayesian analysis to see whether you're guilty or not. No? You...you want evidence and professional investigation? Ooooh, that's not very sporting.

The thing is I largely believe him. Yes, I read his screed and pretty much bought it. Just because it's so damn believable. This is exactly the flimsy process SJWs use to try, convict and discard people. Yes, I know Carrier is slippery as snot (or...some other body fluid), but his account has the ring of truth. And yes, I also totally believe his gender reversal scenario, just because the MRAs have never been totally full of shit. There is s a grain of truth on all sides. Women are largely immune to the entire harassment game; such is the house feminism has built.

Service Dog wrote:

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: Who invented said system? We will name it whatever the hell we want. Booyah!

This guy, 1977.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OMuKjF5nIYo/V ... rose2.jpeg

he called it a Locking Tremelo

I think half the members of the Pit are on the autistic plectrum.

Tribble wrote:

MacGruberKnows wrote:

free thoughtpolice wrote: The thing is... who are you going to believe?
L just wanted to surprise Rick by dropping in to his place and surprising him with a nice rabbit stew.
And then this woman came up all emotional and stuff...

Reminds me of a scene from Local Hero

Preamble:
The two men injure a rabbit on the way to the small town. One guy names it Trudy after an old girlfriend. They give it to the hotel guy to take care of it and then they go to the dining room for dinner:

[youtube]tinUaAmcGLg[/youtube]

That was a great movie. I really loved it.

Dennis Lawson has aged rather better than most members of the Star Wars cast (he played Wedge in the original trilogy) and I was disappointed he didn't appear in The Force Awakens.

Kirbmarc wrote:In general "traditional" societies all over the world are suffering because they've been thrust into modernity due to technological developments and demographic trends.

I think that they're suffering because the natural and human resources of their societies are being appropriated for global monopoly games, in ways that are needlessly undermining their community life and cultural resources, and consequently the foundations of their happiness, and their capacity to cope with the ravaging.

This is by and large inevitable.

I agree, in the sense that I don't think anything can stop the plundering, pillaging and ravaging, for at least a few more generations, until enough people value all people, and all of nature, enough to start reversing it. I think though, that a lot can be done to help reduce the ravaging and counteract its harmful effects.

The only solutions which would preserve traditions would be a large scale extermination of several hundreds of million of people (if not several billions) and a return to the traditional lifestyle by abandoning technology. Few people want this to happen, for very understandable reasons, so if you're interesting in reducing the suffering of people in "traditional" societies you need to start and guide a slow process of modernization.

I think that needs to be qualified. I'm not sure precisely what "process of modernization" you have in mind, but all the ones I've seen in any public discussions look to me like camouflage for community-destroying appropriation of natural and human resources, for global monopoly games, and not at all designed for the benefit of the communities that they're allegedly helping.

There are some kinds of community development that are growing and spreading, that enable communities to benefit from the science, technology and resources of the world's most privileged societies, and from their own natural, human and cultural resources, at the same time, in ways that actually serve their own best interests, and help them better cope with the plundering and pillaging. One way I see for anyone who wants to, to help with that, is by encouraging and supporting the efforts of people who are helping with those kinds of development.

Brive1987 wrote:Benson is still blogging in a machine gun spray of thought farts. Lucky to get more than 3 comments these days.

She's the original old man shouting their anger at an empty street.

http://e.lvme.me/ozofnmp.jpg

Bugger. Wrong gif. You get my point.

Benson is Obi-wan?

"If you strike me off Ftb, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine..."

Er, no you won't, Ophelia.

Shatterface wrote:Bugger. Wrong gif. You get my point.

I spent a good 20 seconds weighing meaning before going on to read this comment.

Now my life is that much duller, less colourful.

Shame on you.

Now this is colourful.

A US skydiver made it into a net after free falling without a parachute.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-skydiver ... qhjwd.html

Brive1987 wrote:Now this is colourful.

A US skydiver made it into a net after free falling without a parachute.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-skydiver ... qhjwd.html

I'd be more impressed if he skydived into a volcano. Only pussies use a net.

He is American.

Service Dog wrote:

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: Who invented said system? We will name it whatever the hell we want. Booyah!

This guy, 1977.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OMuKjF5nIYo/V ... rose2.jpeg

he called it a Locking Tremelo

Hate to contradict , but, the "whammy bar" came with the advent of the Bigsby bridge vibrato the introduction of the 1954 Fender Stratocaster ( a superior system ) with it Tremolo bar really brought the effect into mainstream music.

Floyd created the locked my trem system which would keep the strings in tune throughout massive dive bombs and various guitar heroics.

Brive1987 wrote:He is American.

Wouldn't catch Phil using a net.

Stupid spell correct... Locking tremolo system.

The bigsby came first then the Strat teem.there are a bunch of other systems but those are the big three.( the worst was Gibsons bent spring steel peice of crap.

So so :nin:

So I am just going to leave the video here:

[youtube]g8j0YFzmqWc[/youtube]

jimhabegger wrote:

Kirbmarc wrote:In general "traditional" societies all over the world are suffering because they've been thrust into modernity due to technological developments and demographic trends.

I think that they're suffering because the natural and human resources of their societies are being appropriated for global monopoly games, in ways that are needlessly undermining their community life and cultural resources, and consequently the foundations of their happiness, and their capacity to cope with the ravaging.

This is by and large inevitable.

I agree, in the sense that I don't think anything can stop the plundering, pillaging and ravaging, for at least a few more generations, until enough people value all people, and all of nature, enough to start reversing it. I think though, that a lot can be done to help reduce the ravaging and counteract its harmful effects.

The only solutions which would preserve traditions would be a large scale extermination of several hundreds of million of people (if not several billions) and a return to the traditional lifestyle by abandoning technology. Few people want this to happen, for very understandable reasons, so if you're interesting in reducing the suffering of people in "traditional" societies you need to start and guide a slow process of modernization.

I think that needs to be qualified. I'm not sure precisely what "process of modernization" you have in mind, but all the ones I've seen in any public discussions look to me like camouflage for community-destroying appropriation of natural and human resources, for global monopoly games, and not at all designed for the benefit of the communities that they're allegedly helping.

There are some kinds of community development that are growing and spreading, that enable communities to benefit from the science, technology and resources of the world's most privileged societies, and from their own natural, human and cultural resources, at the same time, in ways that actually serve their own best interests, and help them better cope with the plundering and pillaging. One way I see for anyone who wants to, to help with that, is by encouraging and supporting the efforts of people who are helping with those kinds of development.

The region is a clusterfuck of warring militias and displaced peoples with the pygmies being the favourite whipping boys. A very complicated situation not amenable to simplistic explanations like plundering by global monopolies. Not to say that resources are not being plundered, but you may find that the plundering is being done by more local players (looking at you Genocide Bob Mugabe).

AndrewV69 wrote:So so :nin:

So I am just going to leave the video here:

[youtube]g8j0YFzmqWc[/youtube]

That's the same way Phil would do it, except he'd use a basketball net.

comhcinc wrote:

rayshul wrote:

comhcinc wrote:Why don't pygmy understand how to dig their own wells.

It just seems that at this point in history people should at least get the "building a well for fresh water".

I'm going to guess lack of tools (I read a bit more as that confused me too and they have to use a machine to find water, then other things to dig) and likely basic lack of agricultural knowledge as well.

How have they survived for an odd hundred thousand years without tools and basic agricultural knowledge?


I mean if they are having hardships for other reasons or people want to help them advance out of the iron age cool, but if it's lack of shoves and well building knowledge? No we have to let those people go.

"Why should we plant, when there are so many mongongo nuts in the world?" (Yeah, that was a san bushman, not a pygmy, but if you can live the hunter-gatherer life you will do less work than if you adopt agriculture so it makes the point.)

Hunt wrote:

AndrewV69 wrote:So so :nin:

So I am just going to leave the video here:

[youtube]g8j0YFzmqWc[/youtube]

That's the same way Phil would do it, except he'd use a basketball net.

I am not going to watch that video. Fuck that guy.

comhcinc wrote:Why don't pygmy understand how to dig their own wells.

It just seems that at this point in history people should at least get the "building a well for fresh water".

Arguably it's easier to dig deeper if you, yourself stand over a meter, and barring use of a drill.

So why haven't they found out about the existence of the latter? Or have they found out and decided to reject technology, resorting to deep-digging body builders instead?

Shatterface wrote:

Brive1987 wrote:He is American.

Wouldn't catch Phil using a net.

I did once. Didn't end well...

CommanderTuvok wrote:I now have this image of Carrier, or whoever he's up against, in a Hollywood-type court scene, with the gavel coming down on a 30 year sentence. I fucking dream of SJWs going to prison for long stretches. Pity this one won't be THAT good, but we could see Carrier and some of the other SJWs suffer.

It would at least drive the judge to fining both the plaintiff and the defendants for multiple contempt of the court.

Watched TIM'S VERMEER last nite -- produced & directed by Penn & Teller, follows an inventor who reverse engineers a Vermeer painting to show how it could have literally been done with mirrors. Fascinating.

CommanderTuvok wrote:Atheist's politics can be all over the spectrum, despite was Peezus thinks.

You mean atheist politics can't look you in the eyes while having a conversation? Good grief.

feathers wrote:

CommanderTuvok wrote:Atheist's politics can be all over the spectrum, despite was Peezus thinks.

You mean atheist politics can't look you in the eyes while having a conversation? Good grief.

Are you able to look into the eyes of atheist politics?

Easy J wrote:I managed to work a Carrierism into a convo with a random gay stalker that popped out of nowhere on Facebook:

5.PNG

You misunderstand. "Giving great head" is a reference to his accomplishments at tapping beer:

https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/attract ... 387182.jpg

Kirbmarc wrote:

feathers wrote:

CommanderTuvok wrote:Atheist's politics can be all over the spectrum, despite was Peezus thinks.

You mean atheist politics can't look you in the eyes while having a conversation? Good grief.

Are you able to look into the eyes of atheist politics?

The last time I talked to atheist politics, it kept staring at my tits.

Brive1987 wrote:Carrier words about Benson's pack-rape murderous ejection from FtB have a resonance:

No one here called for her to depart. She chose to on her own. We all maintain many disagreements with each other at FreethoughBlogs, and criticize each other often, without this result.

In the same way that politicians and business executives always "offer their resignation" when caught with their pants down and their free hand in the till.

deLurch wrote:

fuzzy wrote:I speak from experience when I tell you that being sued by an amateur, or rather an amateur who has found a low ranking member of the bar who is willing to pass through filings for them into the for a few c notes, can be more expensive to fight than a real lawyer, because the judge will often indulge the mistakes and let them try again.

Richard does not have to have a lawyer as a pass through conduit in the US. He can completely represent himself.

And as far as judges indulging him, he lives in Ohio now. The judge will warn him about self representing, and from there on he wouldn't be able to get a word in edgewise. The judge will be more concerned about making a misstep in front of a real lawyer. I've seen tenants get eaten alive in a housing court because they couldn't say a word without getting challenged and supported by the judge.

If you are going to play the game, you had better know the rules. ALL of the rules.

Hey, Dicky mastered Quantum Mechanics without any formal training; he can become a better lawyer than any lawyer evah just by being his awesome Amazing Brain self!

feathers wrote:

CommanderTuvok wrote:I now have this image of Carrier, or whoever he's up against, in a Hollywood-type court scene, with the gavel coming down on a 30 year sentence. I fucking dream of SJWs going to prison for long stretches. Pity this one won't be THAT good, but we could see Carrier and some of the other SJWs suffer.

It would at least drive the judge to fining both the plaintiff and the defendants for multiple contempt of the court.

Will Carrier refer to Heina as "they" in his (presumably self-drafted) court pleadings? Some judge is about to get a window into the polyamory community and the weird world of the SJWs.

Service Dog wrote:Melbourne street artist claims his mural caused Instagram to delete his account.

http://imageresizer.static9.net.au/pbEx ... %3fw%3d603

That is priceless! (pun intended).

fuzzy wrote:

deLurch wrote:

fuzzy wrote:I speak from experience when I tell you that being sued by an amateur, or rather an amateur who has found a low ranking member of the bar who is willing to pass through filings for them into the for a few c notes, can be more expensive to fight than a real lawyer, because the judge will often indulge the mistakes and let them try again.

Richard does not have to have a lawyer as a pass through conduit in the US. He can completely represent himself.

And as far as judges indulging him, he lives in Ohio now. The judge will warn him about self representing, and from there on he wouldn't be able to get a word in edgewise. The judge will be more concerned about making a misstep in front of a real lawyer. I've seen tenants get eaten alive in a housing court because they couldn't say a word without getting challenged and supported by the judge.

If you are going to play the game, you had better know the rules. ALL of the rules.

And costing the other fellow three hundred an hour for a lawyer as this happens.

My ex-wife tried to deny me parenting time when I introduced my kids to my girlfriend (years after our marriage ended). Even though she could have afforded a lawyer, she made one of her many baffling decisions and is representing herself. So far, the judge has told her to get over the marriage ending and yelled at her for trying to nitpick at his orders to avoid complying with them. All in all, it's worth every penny I'm paying my attorney.

feathers wrote:

Easy J wrote:I managed to work a Carrierism into a convo with a random gay stalker that popped out of nowhere on Facebook:

5.PNG

You misunderstand. "Giving great head" is a reference to his accomplishments at tapping beer:

https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/attract ... 387182.jpg

And he was even trying to bribe me to sample it. Maybe I should return the favor & offer him all the head he can handle.

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Hey, Dicky mastered Quantum Mechanics without any formal training; he can become a better lawyer than any lawyer evah just by being his awesome Amazing Brain self!

I bet the mind of Dr. Richard Carrier Ph.D. will produce arguments as crazy as those used by sovereign citizens/ freemen on the land. Not that he will use the same ones, of course, but they will be just as "inventive."

Carrier views life in prison as the ultimate win. 3 hot meals a day, a cot, and-- if he wins the SuperMax Solitary jackpot-- no job!

deLurch wrote:Question, does Richard Carrier count as a public figure?

Most people don't know him. But he has published 7 books, with an 8th on its way in October. And he has often received public speaking gigs because people know him. And he certainly tries to present himself as a public figure.

Short answer: yes, with respect to the issues at play now.

Longer answer: There are 2 types of "public figures" (legal concept), although maybe better to view it as a specturm. At one extreme are people like, say, Bill Clinton, who are very well known and have access to media to state their case, and would be considered a "public figure" for almost any topic/issue that could come up.

At the other end are "limited public figures", who could be relative nobodies, but who "inject themselves" into the public arena on some topic. "limited public figures" are considered "public figures" with respect to the issue that made them "limited public figures", but not issues that would be irrelevant to it.

In a case from a few years ago, a post doctoral fellow who was a co-author on a paper was deemed a "limited public figure" with respect to defamation action she filed against entities that claimed she committed research fraud. But if, for example, the defendants also claimed she was a drug smuggler, she almost certainly would not been considered a "public person" on that issue (absent some nexus between the alleged fraud and the drug smuggling).

So in Sticky Dicky's case, it may very well be that he would be "Public Figure" for all issues, but with respect to the issues at play, even if only deemed to be a limited public figure, the connection between what makes him a public figure and the issues at play (speaker/author on various topics, vs his behavior when interacting in that arena) would cover just about everything.

Shatterface wrote: This any better?

http://66.media.tumblr.com/92f8fa83923f ... o1_500.jpg

Thanks Shatterface!

deLurch wrote:Question, does Richard Carrier count as a public figure?

Most people don't know him. But he has published 7 books, with an 8th on its way in October. And he has often received public speaking gigs because people know him. And he certainly tries to present himself as a public figure.

DIcky mos def qualifies as a "public figure", which, as you imply, raises the bar to prove defamation.

feathers wrote:
Arguably it's easier to dig deeper if you, yourself stand over a meter, and barring use of a drill.

Wouldn't have an easier time being closer to the ground :think:

feathers wrote:So why haven't they found out about the existence of the latter? Or have they found out and decided to reject technology, resorting to deep-digging body builders instead?

I am glad I am not the only one questioning pygmy well digging technologies.

I got 21/50 on the autism test, which is about what I would have expected. 0-25 indicates "little [sic] or no autistic traits," so I'm close to the border. In other words, I'm not an Aspie, but I do play one on TV.