Periodic Table of Swearing

[acathode]

Maybe it's the controversy that she produces that sells tickets? Although, as you suggest, if she's largely just blowing smoke that can't redound to the credit of the various conventions.

Really don't get the impression that people buy tickets to see Watson for the controversy, if that was the case, wouldn't the Q&As be a lot more hostile? The controversies seem to happen mostly afterwards, when Watson's stuff is posted online.

The impression I get is that Watson and the FTBers are seen as b-celebrities that sells tickets for the medium to small size events that can't afford the A-list like Dawkins, Harris, Dennet, etc, and that these b-celebrities also serves as useful fluff between the main attractions for the big events.
I also suspect that they are pretty friendly and personal with the higher ups in organizations, that keep feeding them speaking gigs partially because they are "pals". As such, I guess it's not that important what they actually say and do?
(Watson seem to be in the progress of stepping up to the A-list though, which is kinda bizarre.)

But I'm largely unfamiliar with how the con circuit actually work, I've never been to a con, and I have even less idea off how they are organized or who do the organizing. This is just what I'm guessing, and that's the reason I'm asking how and by who these things are handled.

[Altair]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason ... ooooo-ftb/

Miriam is a progressive feminist atheist ...

They never fail to surprise me.

I checked her new blog at FTB and her old blog (http://brutereason.net/) and I'm not sure what to think about her.
At her old blog she has a post about women learning to say no, where she wrote this

The asterisks are there because these Very Concerned Individuals never seem to realize that sex doesn’t just happen between men and women. Neither do they realize that men aren’t the only ones who rape, and women aren’t the only ones who sometimes have trouble repeatedly saying no. But since these are the objections that they continually spew forth, these are the objections I will have to address

That sounds pretty reasonable and not radfemmy at all, which is good.

But now in her new blog, she has a link roundup that links to a post about a woman who got harassed while waiting for the EL (I don't feel like googling it now, but it seems to be some sort of train?) where she recounts the story of a guy who tried to pick her up, kept insisting while she told him she was not interested and then engaged her on a discussion about feminism, harassment and microagressions (In the interest of full disclosure, I'll say that IF things happened the way she describes, the guy was way out of line, and should have left when she told him she wasn't interested. I have my doubts that the conversation actually happened the way she tells it, especially the later part when they talk about feminism and racism, but there's no way to know for sure).

And there Miriam leaves a comment that sounds ... well, FTBish

Were you there? Did Cassy ask you for advice? Do you really think you understand these things better than someone with as much experience as she has?

Please.

That sounds like an answer you'd get at the A+ forum, but only time will tell if she'll take the same route other FTB bloggers have taken.

[Steersman]

Maybe it's the controversy that she produces that sells tickets? Although, as you suggest, if she's largely just blowing smoke that can't redound to the credit of the various conventions.

Really don't get the impression that people buy tickets to see Watson for the controversy, if that was the case, wouldn't the Q&As be a lot more hostile? The controversies seem to happen mostly afterwards, when Watson's stuff is posted online.

The impression I get is that Watson and the FTBers are seen as b-celebrities that sells tickets for the medium to small size events that can't afford the A-list like Dawkins, Harris, Dennet, etc, and that these b-celebrities also serves as useful fluff between the main attractions for the big events.
I also suspect that they are pretty friendly and personal with the higher ups in organizations, that keep feeding them speaking gigs partially because they are "pals". As such, I guess it's not that important what they actually say and do?
(Watson seem to be in the progress of stepping up to the A-list though, which is kinda bizarre.)

But I'm largely unfamiliar with how the con circuit actually work, I've never been to a con, and I have even less idea off how they are organized or who do the organizing. This is just what I'm guessing, and that's the reason I'm asking how and by who these things are handled.

Never been to any of those conventions myself either, although there’s some almost sick fascination there at the not-particularly-edifying shenanigans of some of them. People are of course still people but the behaviours of some of us leave quite a bit to be desired.

It is somewhat amusing that “The Great Rift” has even come to the attention of some of the religious who deplore the rather egregious behaviour on this “side”, notably PZ “Himself”, styling it the “Gnu Civil War”. And someone posted a picture here recently of a church signboard arguing they were happier with some atheists that with some Christians – “sides” seems frequently to be less of an issue than simple humanity.

[Gumby]

Wow, Ed Clint's article was a thing of beauty. Not just because he shamed the shit out of that superficial science dilettante Rebecca Watson, but also because he did it with a completely supported point-by-point rebuttal. Like others here, I'm curious as to the reaction it gets from Watson and her sycophants. I'm glad Watson's shallowness and incompetence are being exposed so incontrovertibly, and I'm glad she was so soundly exposed as the complete and utter fake that she is. Maybe articles like this will help convention organizers get speakers who actually know what the fuck they're talking about, as opposed to charlatans like Watson and the FC5, who put together shams of presentations by hurriedly Googling and cherry-picking which bits seem to fit their "social progressive" agenda.

[Steersman]

Huh, that rape victim. Someone wants more trigger warnings from the A+/RW crowd.

Good grief.

I read the article and it seems the woman was actually rather badly traumatized. While I’m skeptical about many of the claims and arguments from that “crowd” – some similarities with manipulative crocodile tears, I’m not sure that it is wise or reasonable to discount, particularly without evidence, the idea that some people are more traumatized by events of a certain type than others are. For instance, it reminds me of an incident portrayed in the movie Patton with George C. Scott in which Patton berates one soldier for “succumbing” to shell-shock. This is the dialog from Wikiquote:

On August 10, 1943, Patton visits an army aid station tent, while there he confronts a GI who is crying and shaking, Private Paul G. Bennet, but who has no visible wounds. [In reality there were two separate slapping incidents, over a 10-day period. He kicked the first one, Private Charles H. Kuhl, in the butt, in addition to the slapping. The film combines and edits these into one event. The press ignored the first event, but columnist Drew Pearson talked about the second one in a radio broadcast.]):

(Patton): What's the matter with you?
(Bennet): I, I guess I just can't take it sir.
(Patton): What did you say?
(Bennet): It's my nerves sir. I, I, I just can't stand the shelling anymore. (Bennet starts sobbing more)
(Patton): Your nerves? Why, hell, you are just a Goddamned coward. (Patton stands and slaps Bennet's helmet with his gloves) Shut up. I won't have a yellow bastard sitting here crying, in front of these brave men who have been wounded in battle.

And there's a bit of video clip of the incident here, although it's abbreviated.

[Altair]

Wow, Ed Clint's article was a thing of beauty. Not just because he shamed the shit out of that superficial science dilettante Rebecca Watson, but also because he did it with a completely supported point-by-point rebuttal. Like others here, I'm curious as to the reaction it gets from Watson and her sycophants. I'm glad Watson's shallowness and incompetence are being exposed so incontrovertibly, and I'm glad she was so soundly exposed as the complete and utter fake that she is. Maybe articles like this will help convention organizers get speakers who actually know what the fuck they're talking about, as opposed to charlatans like Watson and the FC5, who put together shams of presentations by hurriedly Googling and cherry-picking which bits seem to fit their "social progressive" agenda.

Y U NO SKEPTIC tweeted the article's link to her, but so far there's been no answer.

[CommanderTuvok]

New Game: What message should DJ Grothe have on his shirt when he has that lunch function with Queen Bee???

[KarlVonMox]

That article is great. I must admit that for a time as an undergrad I drank the anti-Evolutionary Psychology kool-aid reading PZ's blog - but now I have realized how ridiculous it is to simply write off an entire field just because it reaches conclusions you don't like. Not to say there arent any problems or bad studies, but if PZ and co had their way they would jettison EP altogether.

My prediction is that they will problably just ignore it. It is much too detailed and thorough for PZ to strawman or misrepresent. I would love to be wrong though.

[KarlVonMox]

That article is great. I must admit that for a time as an undergrad I drank the anti-Evolutionary Psychology kool-aid reading PZ's blog - but now I have realized how ridiculous it is to simply write off an entire field just because it reaches conclusions you don't like. Not to say there arent any problems or bad studies, but if PZ and co had their way they would jettison EP altogether.

My prediction is that they will problably just ignore it. It is much too detailed and thorough for PZ to strawman or misrepresent. I would love to be wrong though.

[Altair]

New Game: What message should DJ Grothe have on his shirt when he has that lunch function with Queen Bee???

http://rlv.zcache.com/sexual_harassment ... 64_400.jpg

[fascination]

Just finished reading Clint's article...just awesome!

[bhoytony]

http://image12.spreadshirt.com/image-se ... Shirts.png

[Skep tickle]

Ed is my man. I suggested that he do this post weeks ago, but had no idea he'd be so thorough about it.

Blowing a kiss your direction. Great suggestion, to the right person for the job. Thanks.

Wow, Ed Clint's article was a thing of beauty. Not just because he shamed the shit out of that superficial science dilettante Rebecca Watson, but also because he did it with a completely supported point-by-point rebuttal. Like others here, I'm curious as to the reaction it gets from Watson and her sycophants. I'm glad Watson's shallowness and incompetence are being exposed so incontrovertibly, and I'm glad she was so soundly exposed as the complete and utter fake that she is. Maybe articles like this will help convention organizers get speakers who actually know what the fuck they're talking about, as opposed to charlatans like Watson and the FC5, who put together shams of presentations by hurriedly Googling and cherry-picking which bits seem to fit their "social progressive" agenda.

The detailed analysis & thorough referencing are beautiful. But his intro and conclusion are also well-written, with very good points. And in his conclusion he addresses face-on the possibility of being attacked on something other than the content of his piece, and cuts to the root of this whole schism in the section quoted below, except - sad to say - the evidence suggests he is being overly optimistic in the last line of this section:

Some of my colleagues have suggested, I would say cynically, that Rebecca Watson and her allies are likely to respond to this criticism by disparaging my character or insinuating I have ulterior motives (perhaps as part of the grand scientific conspiracy). I sincerely hope this is not the case. My aim here is not to attack Watson, but to challenge a few of her unnuanced views about science and skepticism with which I happen to have professional experience. If she wishes to produce a sound, more sophisticated criticism of evolutionary psychology (entirely reasonable to do) then I would call this a success. Moreover, motive is ultimately irrelevant to the validity of my criticisms here. They stand or fall on the evidence alone. I am sure that anyone experienced in skepticism knows this quite well.

[fascination]

New Game: What message should DJ Grothe have on his shirt when he has that lunch function with Queen Bee???

That's going to be one awkward lunch! I wonder if Randi is a little pissed off at Watson as well...

[bhoytony]

http://rlv.zcache.co.uk/dunning_kruger_ ... x2_512.jpg

[fascination]

I noticed a lot of people were posting classical music that they liked. I listened to this song the other day. It was originally made for the movie, "Requiem For a Dream". It was also used in "The Lord of the Rings" but with some changes. It was so popular that they made a remix album of the song with people like Paul Oakenfold. The original composer was Clint Mansell. This version is a little different than the original. BTW, this is my first attempt at embedding a video so we'll see how badly I screw it up. :popcorn:

Any serious appreciation I might have had for that piece has been spoiled completely by laughing at its use in Stains the Cupcake Dog and Shrimp on a Treadmill videos.

I'll have to look that up!

[Skep tickle]

Wow, Ed Clint's article was a thing of beauty. Not just because he shamed the shit out of that superficial science dilettante Rebecca Watson, but also because he did it with a completely supported point-by-point rebuttal. Like others here, I'm curious as to the reaction it gets from Watson and her sycophants. I'm glad Watson's shallowness and incompetence are being exposed so incontrovertibly, and I'm glad she was so soundly exposed as the complete and utter fake that she is. Maybe articles like this will help convention organizers get speakers who actually know what the fuck they're talking about, as opposed to charlatans like Watson and the FC5, who put together shams of presentations by hurriedly Googling and cherry-picking which bits seem to fit their "social progressive" agenda.

Y U NO SKEPTIC tweeted the article's link to her, but so far there's been no answer.

New Game: What message should DJ Grothe have on his shirt when he has that lunch function with Queen Bee???

http://i1.cpcache.com/product/322489325 ... &width=380

[Altair]

Wow, Ed Clint's article was a thing of beauty.

New Game: What message should DJ Grothe have on his shirt when he has that lunch function with Queen Bee???

http://i1.cpcache.com/product/337529570 ... &width=460

[Pinker]

A few of his observations are very similar to my own (so of course i like the guy)

me, a few posts ago:

That's the problem with people who constantly giggle at everything: Even their comments on serious topics sound flippant

Edward Clint:

Why so flippant?

But hey, no big deal, right? Not big enough to research properly or to stop making jokes about for two minutes.

[ERV]

My prediction is that they will problably just ignore it. It is much too detailed and thorough for PZ to strawman or misrepresent. I would love to be wrong though.

Well, I think Watson will ignore it. "I WAS IN AUSTRALIA BECAUSE I IS SUPER FAMOOSE AND WHO IS ED CLINT I HAVE OVER 10,000 READERS WHO IS HE IM REBECCA WATSON!" Why would she draw attention to an article like Eds and risk someone learning something? Exposing people to different ideas? Or heaven forbid, correcting herself and her behavior (has she ever apologized to Stef McGraw?)

This will all be going swimmingly until PZ white-knights with an angry, illegible mish-mash of straw-men. It will provide us with many lulz.

But then everyone will know about the article, so: Damage Control. Spin spin spin-- Give The True Believers a reason to believe 'its all gonna be okay'. Since she cannot defend her 'science', it will the the usual 'Ed is a Nazi, Ed hates women, Ed is racist/wears a racist hat'.

Then Greg Laden tries to get Clint fired.

So speaketh the oracle.

[Steersman]

My prediction is that they will problably just ignore it. It is much too detailed and thorough for PZ to strawman or misrepresent. I would love to be wrong though.

Well, I think Watson will ignore it. "I WAS IN AUSTRALIA BECAUSE I IS SUPER FAMOOSE AND WHO IS ED CLINT I HAVE OVER 10,000 READERS WHO IS HE IM REBECCA WATSON!" Why would she draw attention to an article like Eds and risk someone learning something? Exposing people to different ideas? Or heaven forbid, correcting herself and her behavior (has she ever apologized to Stef McGraw?)

This will all be going swimmingly until PZ white-knights with an angry, illegible mish-mash of straw-men. It will provide us with many lulz.

But then everyone will know about the article, so: Damage Control. Spin spin spin-- Give The True Believers a reason to believe 'its all gonna be okay'. Since she cannot defend her 'science', it will the the usual 'Ed is a Nazi, Ed hates women, Ed is racist/wears a racist hat'.

Then Greg Laden tries to get Clint fired.

So speaketh the oracle.

With no small amount of Delphic wisdom …. :-)

[AndrewV69]

I'm curious to see how Watson and the FC(N) will respond to the post though. Will they completely ignore it? Will they quote-mine and misrepresent it while chanting "MISOGYNIST!", knowing all to well that almost none of their readers will actually bother reading the full post? Will Myers step in and make appeals to his authority as a biologist? Will they create a twitterstorm where they cry and call it harassment and bullying? Their best tactic would most likely be to completely ignore it, but I doubt they'll be able to.

Myers has no authority as a biologist in the scientific community that I am aware of.

He is done in the circles where it matters (actually he was toast a long time before I said anything about him being an ideolog), so he can wail all he wants to.

You could I suppose, make a case that this is why his focus is not on biology, because he knows it himself. He would have to be completely stupid not to know this by now.

The Don Kane business would not have helped either.

[Mr Danksworth]

Dj Grothe preparing for his lunch date with Becky.
http://i.imgur.com/yos12.jpg

[Skep tickle]

Hard to see how she can miss Edward Clint's article; the twitterverse is abuzz with direct links & links to the Debunking Christianity "Don't judge an argument by its conclusion" post.

Oh, but wait. She's in Australia. They probably don't have the internet yet, all the way down there. :D

(ducks)

[real horrorshow]

Y U NO SKEPTIC tweeted the article's link to her, but so far there's been no answer.

I do enjoy Y U NO SKEPTIC. As someone said earlier, it's a perfect meme for the Twitter format. I always imagine him sounding like Amy Wong's dad in Futurama.

This for instance, deserved to be shat upon:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8059/8236 ... d979c3.jpg

To paraphrase Arthur Dent: "Ah, this is obviously some strange use of the word safe rock that I wasn't previously aware of.”

[Pinker]

Makes you wonder why Skepticon didn't have this guy speaking about evo psych instead of Watson, ...

Exactly my thought as i was reading it. There were probably people sitting in the crowd who were in a better position to speak on the topic. Not to mention university lecturers on the topic (or any other topic).

I'm curious to see how Watson and the FC(N) will respond to the post though.

I think they will mostly ignore it. Ideally she would respond with an equally lengthy article. I mean, if the guy makes valid points, surely Rebecca would want to know, and would want *us* to know too. So she should either clarify her points or admit the errors. And if the guy is full of shit and can be corrected on various points, then that would be worth writing about as well.

My only gripes with the article is that he doesn't get the time-stamped quotes right.
For example, this:

"This is why there are tons of people who - particularly scientists - who think that a lot of the pop evolutionary psychology is just nothing more than just so stories, as Steven Jay Gould noted"

becomes this:

“Tons of scientists.. who think that EP is ‘just so stories’” (15:26)

It doesn't change the meaning but I think it's important to be accurate if you're using quotation marks.

And my other gripe is the use of "an hypothesis", which grates my brain.

[Lsuoma]

Wasn't Ed Clint the person who was originally accused by the FC(n) of being the guy behind the Free Thought Blahgs site?

[AndrewV69]

And my other gripe is the use of "an hypothesis", which grates my brain.

I have not finished reading it myself but since you mentioned Gould, I thought I would mention that I would not advise any layman to read anything by that blustering blowhard of bullshyte.

I am still amazed when people mention that walking bucket of slyme in glowing terms. Some links in no particular order about this scumbag ideolog:

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info ... io.1001071
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... -exchange/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/scien ... .html?_r=1
http://www.debunker.com/texts/jensen.html

[bhoytony]

Wasn't Ed Clint the person who was originally accused by the FC(n) of being the guy behind the Free Thought Blahgs site?

Yes I was thinking that he'd been accused of something previously, but I couldn't remember what.

[Gumby]

Wow, Ed Clint's article was a thing of beauty. Not just because he shamed the shit out of that superficial science dilettante Rebecca Watson, but also because he did it with a completely supported point-by-point rebuttal. Like others here, I'm curious as to the reaction it gets from Watson and her sycophants. I'm glad Watson's shallowness and incompetence are being exposed so incontrovertibly, and I'm glad she was so soundly exposed as the complete and utter fake that she is. Maybe articles like this will help convention organizers get speakers who actually know what the fuck they're talking about, as opposed to charlatans like Watson and the FC5, who put together shams of presentations by hurriedly Googling and cherry-picking which bits seem to fit their "social progressive" agenda.

Y U NO SKEPTIC tweeted the article's link to her, but so far there's been no answer.

:lol: I love that guy.

[ERV]

Wasn't Ed Clint the person who was originally accused by the FC(n) of being the guy behind the Free Thought Blahgs site?

AAAAHAHAHA Yeah I forgot about that!!! Not that it matters whether he did or not (some of that stuff had me loling-- someone else there is a big Simpsons fan-- "DONT YOU HATE PANTS??"), but still, HAHAHAHA!

[real horrorshow]

Dj Grothe preparing for his lunch date with Becky.

Surely that's Crom and Half-fish?

[AndrewV69]

BTW, to the grammar/spellling freaks yes it is ideologue, not ideolog.

(and yes I got all agitated thinking about that fecking cunt, the way that PeeZuss Christ never has and probably never will).

[Lsuoma]

Wasn't Ed Clint the person who was originally accused by the FC(n) of being the guy behind the Free Thought Blahgs site?

AAAAHAHAHA Yeah I forgot about that!!! Not that it matters whether he did or not (some of that stuff had me loling-- someone else there is a big Simpsons fan-- "DONT YOU HATE PANTS??"), but still, HAHAHAHA!

My, this goes back a long, long way, to just only a couple of weeks after the Pit was dug: viewtopic.php?f=31&t=73&p=2220&hilit=+ed+clint#p2216

PeeZus even blogged about it (see the linked post above), but reading the the thread further, apparently he retracted...

[Lsuoma]

And http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... -ed-clint/ here's the Steffalump.

[Lsuoma]

And here's how the 'Lump responds when someone asks her how she knows it's him. Love that "So you get to decide whether to trust me on this." She is so full of shit, that if somebody fed her a strong laxative she'd become fucking see-through...

[Gumby]

Ah, so the official excuse will be that Ed Clint just wrote that untrue and horrible attack piece as revenge for being outed as the creator of Freethought Blahgs. :lol:

[Lsuoma]

This yet again proves the value of the Pit: stuff like this might otherwise have gone undocumented...

[Gumby]

This yet again proves the value of the Pit: stuff like this might otherwise have gone undocumented...

I would imagine that a lot of people who don't like FtB/Skepchick/A+ but publicly get all huffy about the Pit privately regard this place as a valuable resource. I suspect this place is appreciated by a lot more people than we know.

[Lsuoma]

There certainly seems to be a constant stream of guests.

I regard it as like porn: lots of people won't admit to reading it, but they're all cracking one out every so often...

BTW: just found a Long-toed Salamander in the garage. Popped the tiny bugger in a cardboard box outside, expecting him to stay put all night (after all, he is a poikilotherm), but looked out a few minutes later to see him nomming on a little Lumbricus.

[Steersman]

This yet again proves the value of the Pit: stuff like this might otherwise have gone undocumented...

I would imagine that a lot of people who don't like FtB/Skepchick/A+ but publicly get all huffy about the Pit privately regard this place as a valuable resource. I suspect this place is appreciated by a lot more people than we know.

Paraphrasing the infamous Noelplum, "And to think our mothers said we would never amount to anything." .... :-)

[katamari Damassi]

Just saw Life of Pi. Stunning to look at, but the story is an allegory(not crazy about those to begin with)and the point of it seems to be that it is better to believe a pleasant falsehood than an unpleasant truth. I can't really recommend the movie.

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

Read that Ed Clint post about Watson's talk and I have to ask, who the fuck is this Steve Snyder who pops up in the comments? Took a look at his blog and the impression I am left with is of someone who knows he is superior to everybody. I especially love the snarky confrontational way he disses the 'too confrontational' Gnus. What's this guy all about?

[Dilurk]

Just saw Life of Pi. Stunning to look at, but the story is an allegory(not crazy about those to begin with)and the point of it seems to be that it is better to believe a pleasant falsehood than an unpleasant truth. I can't really recommend the movie.

See it if you must for the stunning cinematography not the story. The story is fanciful. Also there is a message of "If you don't believe in God you will after I finish. Stupid. The 3D effect is crap, not worth paying for. I ended up with a headache.

[Skep tickle]

Makes you wonder why Skepticon didn't have this guy speaking about evo psych instead of Watson, ...

Exactly my thought as i was reading it. There were probably people sitting in the crowd who were in a better position to speak on the topic. Not to mention university lecturers on the topic (or any other topic).

Sounds like conference organizers didn't know what she was going to talk about (or, at the very least, what the title of her talk was going to be).

After referring to the program, Rebecca says at around 1 minute 6 seconds into the "Girls Shop": "So I know you're all thinking, what the hell are you going to talk about he he, uh 'cuz I didn't tell anyone. That's not on the schedule..."

Seems possible they invited her & gave her carte blanche to pick her topic, or at least tolerated her leaving the details until shortly before the conference or the talk itself. Not a big surprise given how "closely" her talks' topics have "matched" the conference theme, or even skepticism, in the past.

[real horrorshow]

Read that Ed Clint post about Watson's talk and I have to ask, who the fuck is this Steve Snyder who pops up in the comments? Took a look at his blog and the impression I am left with is of someone who knows he is superior to everybody. I especially love the snarky confrontational way he disses the 'too confrontational' Gnus. What's this guy all about?

Never heard of him. I saw warning signs that led me to skip clicking the link - "socraticgadfly"? Oh, how simply too too droll!

His first and only point across three successive posts (didn't he think we could wait while he typed out one long post?) is that he is smarter than everyone, on all sides. He's the xkcd cliché personified.

[disumbrationist]

I'm in love.

I believe Ed Clint is getting his PhD at a prestigious Cali university in Evolutionary Psychology/Anthropology or some such.

POSEUR!!

Wooo! UCLA representing!.
Interesting that Sam Harris and Victor Stenger also went here. Maybe being in LA makes you doubt the existence of god.

[KarlVonMox]

And my other gripe is the use of "an hypothesis", which grates my brain.

I have not finished reading it myself but since you mentioned Gould, I thought I would mention that I would not advise any layman to read anything by that blustering blowhard of bullshyte.

I am still amazed when people mention that walking bucket of slyme in glowing terms. Some links in no particular order about this scumbag ideolog:

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info ... io.1001071
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... -exchange/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/scien ... .html?_r=1
http://www.debunker.com/texts/jensen.html

Thanks for these links about Gould - I always knew him as the one that came up with NOMA as an excuse to leave the claims made by religion untouched and unscrutinized yet he always seemed like a good scientist, but now I can safely say that is also not the case.

[CommanderTuvok]

New Game: What message should DJ Grothe have on his shirt when he has that lunch function with Queen Bee???

That's going to be one awkward lunch! I wonder if Randi is a little pissed off at Watson as well...

I would imagine Randi is not at all impressed with Queen Bee and the rest of the rebel rousers. But the feeling towards Randi from the Baboons is probably more hostile, after all...

Randi has worked hard for the community...
Randi is an old white guy...
Randi is a man...
Randi has worked hard in making TAM an annual success story...
Randi employs DJ Grothe...
Randi is a long-time buddy of Richard Dawkins...
Randi is actually a PROPER skeptic...

[Lsuoma]

New Game: What message should DJ Grothe have on his shirt when he has that lunch function with Queen Bee???

That's going to be one awkward lunch! I wonder if Randi is a little pissed off at Watson as well...

I would imagine Randi is not at all impressed with Queen Bee and the rest of the rebel rousers. But the feeling towards Randi from the Baboons is probably more hostile, after all...

Randi has worked hard for the community...
Randi is an old white guy...
Randi is a man...
Randi has worked hard in making TAM an annual success story...
Randi employs DJ Grothe...
Randi is a long-time buddy of Richard Dawkins...
Randi is actually a PROPER skeptic...

Yeah, but he gets props because he is of teh gai!!!

[Reap]

New Game: What message should DJ Grothe have on his shirt when he has that lunch function with Queen Bee???

so many choices .....
http://reapsowradio.com/graphics/552869 ... 0992_n.jpg

For the record- We found that mannequin in the dumpster and saved her life so...yea

[Cunning Punt]

Y U NO SKEPTIC tweeted the article's link to her, but so far there's been no answer.

I do enjoy Y U NO SKEPTIC. As someone said earlier, it's a perfect meme for the Twitter format. I always imagine him sounding like Amy Wong's dad in Futurama.

This for instance, deserved to be shat upon:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8059/8236 ... d979c3.jpg

To paraphrase Arthur Dent: "Ah, this is obviously some strange use of the word safe rock that I wasn't previously aware of.”

Y U SUCH A FUCKING BROWN NOSE.

[rayshul]

Just saw Life of Pi. Stunning to look at, but the story is an allegory(not crazy about those to begin with)and the point of it seems to be that it is better to believe a pleasant falsehood than an unpleasant truth. I can't really recommend the movie.

The book was a fucking embarrassment and should never have recieved a booker

Although the booker enterprise took a hilarious dive into shitgasm after it became the MAN booker

I hate the amount of time I spent reading that piece of shit book

[masakari2012]

[youtube]guQZXSlcDq0[/youtube]

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Today's C&H:

http://www.explosm.net/comics/3004/

(Image too big to be embeded)

Relevant.

[Walter Ego]

Shameless Whoring:

I want to be on an atheist/skeptic podcast. I think I have an interesting story to tell about why I am a skeptic and a can speak complete grammatical English sentences. PM me if you are willing to give me a chance. We can Skype first or if you have a You Tube channel, I'll send you an audition video.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

*snip*

Anyway, thanks for listening to my ramble...I feel better now. I just can't see how people can listen to her and pay money.

FTFY

Chemistry joke:

Two chemist go into a pub.

The first tells the bartender: "I"ll have a glass of H2O"

The second says: "I'll have a glass of H2O too"

Then he dies.



NOTE: It's quite possible I've read that joke at the original Slimepit. If so, please pardon my unoriginality, it's Sunday morning.

[ScooterKPFT]

Posted at Pharygule:
My old friends and Pharynguliltes.
I think the most important person in history is Genghis Khan, whom slaughtered the ruling class, the landowners and politicians and spread the enlightenment throughout Eurasia.

Do I have any allies here that are in favor of violence and hanging Wall Street fucks to the horizon? I am cross-posting this to the slymepit

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Yesterday night I was reading a chapter in Hitch 22 where the Hitch described some of the word games he and his friends used to have at their Friday Lunches in London, back in the 70's. One of them was replacing "man" with "cunt", which gave such jems as "The Old Cunt and the Sea", "Of Mice and Cunts", "Supercunt", "Batcunt"...etc.

Steers, would you mind if I address you as Steerscunt from now on, out of respect for Hitch? :D

Sure, but just at Friday lunches. And smile when you say that pardner …. :-)

Although I kind of wonder what Hitchens had in mind with those games of his – just dicking about or did he have some principle in mind that he was trying to develop?

*snip*

Seems this group liked to mause themselves with words, and not only man/cunt. Here is the paragraph itself (page 172 of the 2011 Atlantic Books edition):

As for the word games, just bear with me if you would. Try, first, turning the word “House” into “Sock.” OK: 1Bleak Sock, Heartbreak Sock, The Fall of the Sock of Usher, The Sock of Atreus, The Sock of the Seven Gables, The Sock of the Rising Sun… This can take time, as can the substitution (a very common English vulgarism) of the word “cunt,” for the word “man.” Thus: A Cunt for All Seasons, A Cunt’s a Cunt for All That, He Was a Cunt: Take Him for All in All, The Cunt Who Shot Liberty Valance, Batcunt, Supercunt (I know, I know but one must keep the pot boiling) and then, all right, a shift to the only hardly less coarse word “prong,” as in The Prong with the Golden Gun, Our Prong in Havana, Prongs without Women, Those Magnificent Prongs in Their Flying Machines, and so forth. These and other similarly grueling routines had to be rolled around the palate and the tongue many a time before Clive James suddenly exclaimed: “ ‘A Shropshire Cunt.’ By A.E. Sockprong.” This symbiosis seemed somehow to make the long interludes of puerility worthwhile.

Still catching up with what I missed last night.

[disumbrationist]

Posted at Pharygule:
My old friends and Pharynguliltes.
I think the most important person in history is Genghis Khan, whom slaughtered the ruling class, the landowners and politicians and spread the enlightenment throughout Eurasia.

Do I have any allies here that are in favor of violence and hanging Wall Street fucks to the horizon? I am cross-posting this to the slymepit

You're a madman. People at Pharyngula don't support the Enlightenment.