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

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:

Ape+lust wrote:

Skep tickle wrote:

SK26 retweeted this :D

http://imgur.com/38zCe7s.png

I could die from anaphylaxis, and I think this is hilarious.

I'll be passing this joke off as my own next time I do my first aid training.

feathers wrote:

Couch wrote:I was glad to help and found the task interesting and charged them only a token fee, plus disbursements - mates rates, as we say in the trade. Lo and behold word got around and my phone rang hot with persons of ever-more-distant and dubious acquaintenace calling upon me to 'do their dunny lane', a phrase which to this day in my mind carries splendid possibility.

Dunny Lane, isn't that also a song by the Beatles?

The Beatles 'Penny Lane' -

Does anyone still say "To spend a penny" ?

Outed1TimeAsGrey! wrote:Does anyone still say "To spend a penny" ?

I haven't heard it, but at least once a week I need to explain that "I don't give a dam" has nothing to do with religion and doesn't include an expletive. It usually goes something like:

"If you're an atheist, why do talk about damnation?"

"If you're an academic, why are you so fucking ignorant?"

jet_lagg wrote: That brought me to a screeching halt as well. Everybody knows about the 30% rule of thumb (she even mentions it in her post). I don't know how she even got the lease. My apartment in Brooklyn is cheaper than that and there's no way the landlord would have let me in making her salary.

I smell bullshit in her story. It's good bullshit, like the bit about it being her grandpa's car and the CVS employee overhearing her conversation and giving her 6 bucks but it's bullshit nonetheless. This ( comedy writing ) is the side gig she was talking about and no doubt there's enough chumps out there in Internetland who''ll actually take her story seriously and send her the money she's conveniently set up not one, but two avenues with which to do so.

NoGodsEver wrote:

Brive1987 wrote:PZ almost condescended to like Deadpool. As always his hatred of his fellow man spoilt it for him.

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

I'd love to see PZ watch a movie with a black audience. I'd love even more for him to turn around and say something, anything, to one of them.

Like, 'Are you people going to talk through the entire, goddamn movie?'

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:

deLurch wrote:
granola Bay

That's the bomber that dropped Little Boy on Hiroshima, yes?

Yes, and Kashi Bar did Nagasaki.

I can hardly wrap my mind around the sort of idiocy that thinks an audience laughing is "trying too hard."

No Peez, those are natural human emotions. You're probably the only person in the crowd who has to put in effort to simulate them.

Scented Nectar wrote:Apple is so scared of being called islamophobic, that they are refusing to unlock a terrorist murderer's phone for the FBI, under the guise of protecting customer privacy and it being a "hard case" (yeah, sure it is!). This video needs thumbing down.

Why Apple is Rejecting The FBI’s Request for Universal Access to iPhones
[youtube]K0m_zbDitlY[/youtube]

Well, he doesn't address what I think is the real issue. IMO it is this: can a government force someone to do something to assist them (for whatever reason, but lets concede it is a compelling reason), when that person or entity did nothing wrong or illegal in the first place?

This is not a case where Apple is being asked to turn over things in their possession (like that data being sought, or even tools that they already have that would unlock the phone). The government is asking Apple to expend effort and resources to help the government do what the government wants, and at the same time to forever destroy what Apple considers to be a valuable (and completely legal) feature of their products.

I think it is a very important principle to defend. I'd have no problem if Apple decided to help them (even if backdoor- hush hush), but that should be their choice to make voluntarily.

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: I could die from anaphylaxis, and I think this is hilarious.

My mother, god rot her soul, was allergic to bee stings. She had an Epipen, and when one expired, she decided to use the old one to see how it worked. Apparently she tried to trigger the auto-inject by pressing it against a door jamb, but somehow managed to get the entire dose into her thumb. Medical students are told at great length that adrenaline/epinephrine must not be injected into digits (which matters when using local anæsthetics, which are sometimes mixed with adrenaline to constrict blood vessels, making the effect of the anæsthetic last longer by stopping the anæsthetic being carried away in the bloodstream) and this warning involves scenarios of gangrene from injected adrenaline. I'm happy to report that she suffered no damage whatsoever from having 0.3mg of adrenaline injected into her thumb pad (the only damage sustained was to my wife's psyche, when she was required to stand over the affected digit for the day: she disliked her mother in law almost as much as I did.)

Adrenaline is nasty stuff, subjectively. We will inject 1mg repeatedly IV or even instill it into the bronchi via an endotracheal tube in an arrest, and never seem to do any harm (nor any good in the vast majority of cases). But the subjective feeling is really horrid. The worst panic attack ever is the feeling that results.

As a Public Service Announcement I will say that if any owner of an EpiPen hands it to you with a slightly odd look upon their face, you should go ahead and jam it against their thigh. The next few hours will be busy with the consequences, but you won't kill them, and you might have saved their life. As for my mother, this post reminds me it is time to go and dance on her grave again.

Billie from Ockham wrote:

Outed1TimeAsGrey! wrote:Does anyone still say "To spend a penny" ?

I haven't heard it, but at least once a week I need to explain that "I don't give a dam" has nothing to do with religion and doesn't include an expletive. It usually goes something like:

"If you're an atheist, why do talk about damnation?"

"If you're an academic, why are you so fucking ignorant?"

Not sure I agree with this:

The OED suggests “damn” is derived from the Middle English phrase “not worth a kerse [curse].”

some guy wrote:

Scented Nectar wrote:Apple is so scared of being called islamophobic, that they are refusing to unlock a terrorist murderer's phone for the FBI, under the guise of protecting customer privacy and it being a "hard case" (yeah, sure it is!). This video needs thumbing down.

Why Apple is Rejecting The FBI’s Request for Universal Access to iPhones
[youtube]K0m_zbDitlY[/youtube]

Well, he doesn't address what I think is the real issue. IMO it is this: can a government force someone to do something to assist them (for whatever reason, but lets concede it is a compelling reason), when that person or entity did nothing wrong or illegal in the first place?

This is not a case where Apple is being asked to turn over things in their possession (like that data being sought, or even tools that they already have that would unlock the phone). The government is asking Apple to expend effort and resources to help the government do what the government wants, and at the same time to forever destroy what Apple considers to be a valuable (and completely legal) feature of their products.

I think it is a very important principle to defend. I'd have no problem if Apple decided to help them (even if backdoor- hush hush), but that should be their choice to make voluntarily.

That's certainly a principle to defend but Apple already records a shit-load of its customers data and sells it to third parties.

iPhones can track their customers movements, purchases, even the amount of exercise you take.

I hate people talking through movies but laughing is the whole fucking point of seeing a comedy with an audience.

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:

deLurch wrote:
granola Bay

That's the bomber that dropped Little Boy on Hiroshima, yes?

No, that was the Enola Gay (which should have stayed at home yesterday).

Shatterface wrote:I hate people talking through movies but laughing is the whole fucking point of seeing a comedy with an audience.

I am an asshole about talking in the theater, too, but PZ is laughably boring. What kind of psycho gets annoyed when people laugh at comedies?

PZ doesn't like people or the things we do.

some guy wrote:

Scented Nectar wrote:Apple is so scared of being called islamophobic, that they are refusing to unlock a terrorist murderer's phone for the FBI, under the guise of protecting customer privacy and it being a "hard case" (yeah, sure it is!). This video needs thumbing down.

Why Apple is Rejecting The FBI’s Request for Universal Access to iPhones
[youtube]K0m_zbDitlY[/youtube]

Well, he doesn't address what I think is the real issue. IMO it is this: can a government force someone to do something to assist them (for whatever reason, but lets concede it is a compelling reason), when that person or entity did nothing wrong or illegal in the first place?

This is not a case where Apple is being asked to turn over things in their possession (like that data being sought, or even tools that they already have that would unlock the phone). The government is asking Apple to expend effort and resources to help the government do what the government wants, and at the same time to forever destroy what Apple considers to be a valuable (and completely legal) feature of their products.

I think it is a very important principle to defend. I'd have no problem if Apple decided to help them (even if backdoor- hush hush), but that should be their choice to make voluntarily.

I think of it like a search warrant. Even though those are sometimes misused, the terrorist in question is a valid search. It's way outside of being a basic privacy issue. It's like a landlord refusing to open a high-tech lock on a tenant's door when there's a search warrant, with the tenant being the terrorist in question, who has already murdered people. I doubt Apple would have to try hard to do it, or expend too much effort or resources. They know their products. And it wouldn't open the door to other people's privacy being at risk. Apple could simply refuse for any less valid situations, such as only open phones of terrorists who have murdered, like this guy, but not those who are merely suspected. I really think they are just scared of being considered islamophobic.

However, to look at it more charitably, maybe they are just making terrorists feel comfortable using their phones while in reality it's being monitored on the sly. That would be good. :)

Ape+lust wrote:

paddybrown wrote:

Ape+lust wrote: Roy Rogers Overture

http://imgur.com/P2gTO5A.jpg

Congratulations Apey, I laughed so loudly at that one, I'm slightly worried my neighbours might have heard me.

Thank you, Paddy! I could see Peez cadging rides off women when no one is looking, like an R Crumb without talent or honesty.

Hey, if you don't mind a suggestion about what your next role should be.... :D

http://imgur.com/w6mHAdp.jpg

Nice one. I have shared it with the rest of the cast.

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:(I know it's the Enola Gay. please nobody kill my joke)

Too late. But it reminds me of one of my worst jokes, that went down like a lead balloon but I am perversely still proud of. I was in an online discussion about the Occupy movement and somebody brought up the Plutonomist Manifesto. My response was "wasn't that the first Star Wars prequel?"

Really? wrote:

Shatterface wrote:I hate people talking through movies but laughing is the whole fucking point of seeing a comedy with an audience.

I am an asshole about talking in the theater, too, but PZ is laughably boring. What kind of psycho gets annoyed when people laugh at comedies?

PZ doesn't like people or the things we do.

PZ is just better than other people. You would do well to remember this.

Scented Nectar wrote:I think of it like a search warrant. Even though those are sometimes misused, the terrorist in question is a valid search. It's way outside of being a basic privacy issue. It's like a landlord refusing to open a high-tech lock on a tenant's door when there's a search warrant, with the tenant being the terrorist in question, who has already murdered people.

No, it's more like the FBI asking a large lock manufacturer to give them a skeleton key to all security locks the locksmith ever sold in the country. And after opening one lock with it, they'll destroy it, word of honour.

I doubt Apple would have to try hard to do it, or expend too much effort or resources. They know their products. And it wouldn't open the door to other people's privacy being at risk. Apple could simply refuse for any less valid situations, such as only open phones of terrorists who have murdered, like this guy, but not those who are merely suspected. I really think they are just scared of being considered islamophobic.

Not impossible they already have some routines lying around. But the fact that a hardware/software provider in principle can easily crack the encryption on their own devices should scare the whit out of you. They should open their code for all to inspect, plain and simple.

And Nugent's latest is up, in which he's forced to waste his time responding to some nobody cunt who will never contribute to the advancement of secularism. I'm about to have a fucking aneurysm .

http://www.michaelnugent.com/2016/02/21/a-moral-panic/

Yeah, reading this right now.

I have to say Michael has the patience of a saint. I myself tried the conciliatory approach, but it exploded in my face like a thousand Dick Carriers.

Actually guffawed at that one. Thanks.

Probably time for me to take a break from the conversation as well. Seeing red.

jet_lagg wrote:Actually guffawed at that one. Thanks.

Probably time for me to take a break from the conversation as well. Seeing red.

I've realized it's useless to try and have a normal conversation with people who don't use the same language as we do. I had a bit of hope with Aidan, as they seemed to be a bit more open than the usual SJW. But boy was I wrong. Horribly wrong, even.

I'm not even going to mention Bob, Perfect Ally Fantastic.

It's only been 24 hours since the Pit hangout, and I'm already getting the shakes from Pit detox.

deLurch wrote:

Oglebart wrote:This story is doing the rounds too, about a SJW 25 year old Yelp employee that thought it would be a good idea to write a scathing letter to her CEO condemning her awful working conditions and inadequate pay. The entitlement is strong with this one, and as seems to be increasingly common, all her problems are somebody else's fault. It won't come as a surprise to find out that she has since been relieved of her position, but that should make her happy right? I'm sure there will be a long queue of blue chip employers waiting to snap her up now, I mean how better to advertise yourself than this masterpiece?

So, English major pulling in minimum wage for the area notorious for high rents.

She choose the degree.
She choose the minimum wage job.
She choose to work in a city that is expensive to live in.
She choose to get her own apartment spending 85% of her income, instead of getting a place with room mates.

All of the granola Bay Area people are busy making sure that no one builds apartment buildings which would help lower the cost of rents.

That said, why on earth open up a minimum wage call center in a city where people have trouble affording a place to live. I think that it is insane that start ups opt for San Francisco.

Undergrad English/Graduate Library Science major here. I replied - kindly, but firmly. I have been through 4 or 5 recessions and the last was the worst I've ever seen - but my parents were Depression/WWII generation and this young lady's entitlement is just too much to take. She still has her life ahead of her, whereas I'm starting over in my fifties. It is TOUGH out there, but if someone has the wherewithall to market herself on Twitter as she is doing, she has the means to show the persistence, discipline, and dedication in whatever new job she finds in order to move up eventually.

Kristine:

Not everyone is as good as you, you know :)

First foray into making 'moonglamper' a thing. Result so far: apparent butthurt (but only from a sample size of, uh...one, sadly. Still, as those yellow-faced Johnnies from the Far East like to say: 'Journey of a thousand miles begin with one step')

jet_lagg wrote:And Nugent's latest is up, in which he's forced to waste his time responding to some nobody cunt who will never contribute to the advancement of secularism. I'm about to have a fucking aneurysm .

http://www.michaelnugent.com/2016/02/21/a-moral-panic/

Indeed. And that's being charitable - looks like an A-class dickhead who no longer deserves a "they" or a "them", and should be referred to henceforth as a demented ideologue, a "dude", and a "stupid ass tranny".

Scented Nectar wrote:

some guy wrote:Well, he doesn't address what I think is the real issue. IMO it is this: can a government force someone to do something to assist them (for whatever reason, but lets concede it is a compelling reason), when that person or entity did nothing wrong or illegal in the first place?

This is not a case where Apple is being asked to turn over things in their possession (like that data being sought, or even tools that they already have that would unlock the phone). The government is asking Apple to expend effort and resources to help the government do what the government wants, and at the same time to forever destroy what Apple considers to be a valuable (and completely legal) feature of their products.

I think it is a very important principle to defend. I'd have no problem if Apple decided to help them (even if backdoor- hush hush), but that should be their choice to make voluntarily.

I think of it like a search warrant. Even though those are sometimes misused, the terrorist in question is a valid search. It's way outside of being a basic privacy issue. It's like a landlord refusing to open a high-tech lock on a tenant's door when there's a search warrant, with the tenant being the terrorist in question, who has already murdered people. I doubt Apple would have to try hard to do it, or expend too much effort or resources. They know their products. And it wouldn't open the door to other people's privacy being at risk. Apple could simply refuse for any less valid situations, such as only open phones of terrorists who have murdered, like this guy, but not those who are merely suspected. I really think they are just scared of being considered islamophobic.

Well, at the risk of getting into an analogy battle, it more like the police requiring a disinterested neighbor to open the door so they can get in because he happens to have the ability to hack the lock (Lets assume the lock explodes and destroys the property if 3 failed attempts are made to enter the right code). The neighbor is free to assist, but IMO should not be compelled (under the thread of prison) to expend his time and effort to do so.

And how do you define "less valid situations"? Remember, its the government making that call, not Apple. Suspected pedophelia? Drug dealing? Alleged domestic abuse? Petty burglary? Insider trading? Selling non-taxed cigarettes? Criticising the mayor? Once Apples gives the governement the tools to unlock this phone, they will be able to unlock any similar phone they might want to in the future. And can other governments compel Apple to give them this tool? And to use for whatever "situation" they decide is "valid"?

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:

jet_lagg wrote:Actually guffawed at that one. Thanks.

Probably time for me to take a break from the conversation as well. Seeing red.

I've realized it's useless to try and have a normal conversation with people who don't use the same language as we do. I had a bit of hope with Aidan, as they seemed to be a bit more open than the usual SJW. But boy was I wrong. Horribly wrong, even.

It's a rabbit hole. Trying to talk reasonably just results in more quibbling, special pleading, redefinitions of words, twisting of statements, and the usual rain-on-parade-deer games from them.
I'm afraid that Aiden got the attention he was looking for. I'm surprised that Michael thought he had to respond to one of these "I-just-want-you-to-know"ers. They're like the murderer calling the police to report "finding" the body and who then attend the memorial.

Shatterface wrote:... Apple already records a shit-load of its customers data and sells it to third parties.

iPhones can track their customers movements, purchases, even the amount of exercise you take.

Yes, but customers have consented to this. An important distinction.

Wee bit o' blues for yez. My mostly-improvised solo cover of ZZ Top "Blue Jean Blues".

[youtube]kpp9MSEOh3U[/youtube]

screwtape wrote:

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: I could die from anaphylaxis, and I think this is hilarious.

My mother, god rot her soul, was allergic to bee stings. .... As for my mother, this post reminds me it is time to go and dance on her grave again.

:lol: Reminds me of Erma Bombeck's "Family: The Ties That Bind and Gag". But sorry to hear that your childhood was worse than those of many, although they say that most are dysfunctional to a greater or lesser degree.

The shit Nugent has to deal with:

Bob February 21, 2016 at 6:35 pm

“I don’t use that interpretation of the word ‘ally’. I see allies as equal partners with a shared goal and equal standards of reciprocity.”

An ally can never be an “equal partner” with someone who is actually a member of a marginalized group. You occupy fundamentally different statuses with respect to the oppression in question, and the failure to recognize that makes you a bad ally to that extent.

And:

Becca Ryan February 21, 2016 at 7:08 pm
You, as a cishet white dude, don’t get to define allyship. It is not an equal partnership as allies tend to come from the oppressive majority. If you allyship is dependent on what, marginalised and oppressed people being nice and fitting into whatever standards you hold them to, then we don’t want your allyship or your support.

Bob is a cunt.
Becca is a dick.

paddybrown wrote:Wee bit o' blues for yez. My mostly-improvised solo cover of ZZ Top "Blue Jean Blues".

[youtube]kpp9MSEOh3U[/youtube]

Thumb over neck? Are you fucking crazy posting this shit here?!?

Shatterface wrote:

some guy wrote:

Scented Nectar wrote:Apple is so scared of being called islamophobic, that they are refusing to unlock a terrorist murderer's phone for the FBI, under the guise of protecting customer privacy and it being a "hard case" (yeah, sure it is!). This video needs thumbing down.

Why Apple is Rejecting The FBI’s Request for Universal Access to iPhones
[youtube]K0m_zbDitlY[/youtube]

Well, he doesn't address what I think is the real issue. IMO it is this: can a government force someone to do something to assist them (for whatever reason, but lets concede it is a compelling reason), when that person or entity did nothing wrong or illegal in the first place?

This is not a case where Apple is being asked to turn over things in their possession (like that data being sought, or even tools that they already have that would unlock the phone). The government is asking Apple to expend effort and resources to help the government do what the government wants, and at the same time to forever destroy what Apple considers to be a valuable (and completely legal) feature of their products.

I think it is a very important principle to defend. I'd have no problem if Apple decided to help them (even if backdoor- hush hush), but that should be their choice to make voluntarily.

That's certainly a principle to defend but Apple already records a shit-load of its customers data and sells it to third parties.

iPhones can track their customers movements, purchases, even the amount of exercise you take.

One reason I'm happy not to have an iPhone. I do have an old 3rd gen iPod. The largest capacity one they ever made I think. Once they started pushing the phones and minis the storage capacity went way down. I do love the thing though since it can store all the music in the goddamn world, and I have a lot.

The SJW version of an 'ally' is more akin to 'minion' or 'attack dog.' Or the more common 'white knight.'

Apparently a series of teaching moments.

Serious question:

Is racismisbaddude a Slymepitter trolling around?

Because if so, it's neither constructive nor funny. It's tedious and hinders whatever talk may be infected.

racismisbaddude is no Godfrey Elfwick, that's for sure.

Shatterface wrote:The shit Nugent has to deal with:

Bob February 21, 2016 at 6:35 pm

“I don’t use that interpretation of the word ‘ally’. I see allies as equal partners with a shared goal and equal standards of reciprocity.”

An ally can never be an “equal partner” with someone who is actually a member of a marginalized group. You occupy fundamentally different statuses with respect to the oppression in question, and the failure to recognize that makes you a bad ally to that extent.

And:

Becca Ryan February 21, 2016 at 7:08 pm
You, as a cishet white dude, don’t get to define allyship. It is not an equal partnership as allies tend to come from the oppressive majority. If you allyship is dependent on what, marginalised and oppressed people being nice and fitting into whatever standards you hold them to, then we don’t want your allyship or your support.

The words they're looking for are "toilet slave".

paddybrown wrote:Wee bit o' blues for yez. My mostly-improvised solo cover of ZZ Top "Blue Jean Blues".

[youtube]kpp9MSEOh3U[/youtube]

What guitar are you using?
Where's the Les Paul?

I think the gutteral crunch of a Les Paul would really fit that song.

Bloody hell Paddy can you stop with the talent! I'm finding it very triggering.

It's my Epiphone Dot. The Les Paul is in its case downstairs. I was meant to have a band practice today but it fell through. So when I had the urge to film myself playing the Dot was closest to hand.

The whiny idiot who is accusing Michael Nugent of "transphobia" is also a Muslim accommodationist

Aidian Rowe wrote:The word Muslim has a set of associated racial meanings. It is used in various ways to signify a multiplicity of minority races and cultures. This is simply a fact of our political discourse. This is why the political framing of Islam is a racial issue. What’s more: everyone knows this. The “I’m criticising their beliefs not their race” gambit is merely an attempt to deny the racial content of your statements in order to sidestep accusations of racism – a classic racist move.

Criticism of Islam is racism.

Kirbmarc wrote:The whiny idiot who is accusing Michael Nugent of "transphobia" is also a Muslim accommodationist

Aidian Rowe wrote:The word Muslim has a set of associated racial meanings. It is used in various ways to signify a multiplicity of minority races and cultures. This is simply a fact of our political discourse. This is why the political framing of Islam is a racial issue. What’s more: everyone knows this. The “I’m criticising their beliefs not their race” gambit is merely an attempt to deny the racial content of your statements in order to sidestep accusations of racism – a classic racist move.

Criticism of Islam is racism.

Is they (still sounds wrong to me) plagiarising Jenny McDermott?

Michael deleted my rants. :lol:

jimthepleb wrote: Criticism of Islam is racism.

Is they (still sounds wrong to me) plagiarising Jenny McDermott?[/quote]

He (I'm deliberately refusing to acknowledge his fantasy gender) is a verbose, boring Utopian neo-communist who believes that waged work is a form of slavery, that the solution to environmental problems is Communism, and that political Islam is a good thing.

He's a fan of Deleuze and Guattari (two of the worst idiots to ever come out of the postmodernist movement) and of Toni Negri (an Italian sociology professor who was a supporter of Communist terrorists).

He's the worst of Setar, McDermott and Jonathan McIntosh rolled into a whiny ensemble.

Kirb

He's also a 'queer shapeshifter'. Whatever the fuck that is.

Tigzy wrote:Kirb

He's also a 'queer shapeshifter'. Whatever the fuck that is.

That's a new one.

Kristine wrote:

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:

jet_lagg wrote:Actually guffawed at that one. Thanks.

Probably time for me to take a break from the conversation as well. Seeing red.

I've realized it's useless to try and have a normal conversation with people who don't use the same language as we do. I had a bit of hope with Aidan, as they seemed to be a bit more open than the usual SJW. But boy was I wrong. Horribly wrong, even.

It's a rabbit hole. Trying to talk reasonably just results in more quibbling, special pleading, redefinitions of words, twisting of statements, and the usual rain-on-parade-deer games from them.
I'm afraid that Aiden got the attention he was looking for. I'm surprised that Michael thought he had to respond to one of these "I-just-want-you-to-know"ers. They're like the murderer calling the police to report "finding" the body and who then attend the memorial.

Aiden got the attention THEY were looking for, you bigot!

Take your disgusting pluraliphobia elsewhere

Kirbmarc wrote:

Tigzy wrote:Kirb

He's also a 'queer shapeshifter'. Whatever the fuck that is.

That's a new one.

So new that a google search only turned up a Facebook page with three likes. But yeah. 'Queer shapeshifter'. It's a thing, apparently.

Just watched a few JenDurp vids - having avoided her till now. I had written her off as a shorthand squiggle for "idiot".

Now, having watched her 'content', I feel my life has been made sadder and yet my opinion of her remains unchanged.

Somehow I have been had. :x

Suet Cardigan wrote:Probably Ninja'd, but Jenny McDerp-Mott has doubled down on the "Armoured Skeptic is a rapist" claim:

[youtube]QLLbaYeZrDo[/youtube]

She's insane.

Why is The Joker accusing A.S. of rape?

http://i59.tinypic.com/5nrcyw.jpg

Really? wrote:

Shatterface wrote:I hate people talking through movies but laughing is the whole fucking point of seeing a comedy with an audience.

I am an asshole about talking in the theater, too, but PZ is laughably boring. What kind of psycho gets annoyed when people laugh at comedies?

PZ doesn't like people or the things we do.

Notice he didn't actually say anything. He is way too chicken shit to actually say anything.

If Aidan Rowe is supposed to be a woman then how come xe refers to ximself as a "man" on this page ?

http://www.last.fm/music/Kanellos

Kanellos is the one-man experimental electronic music project of Aidan Rowe.

Enquiring minds and all......

Stout wrote:If Aidan Rowe is supposed to be a woman then how come xe refers to ximself as a "man" on this page ?

http://www.last.fm/music/Kanellos

Kanellos is the one-man experimental electronic music project of Aidan Rowe.

Enquiring minds and all......

That appears to be Aiden's dead...uh, gender. Things have been recified in 'their' more recent last.fm page: http://www.last.fm/music/Pink+Circles

testing

Turns out that Aiden Rowe is a woman hating sexist, anti-feminist misogynist.

Well, according to Ophelia's definitions...