Periodic Table of Swearing

[franc]

More lazy journalists begging to be exploited -

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispa ... ist_schism_/

[sacha]

The peace award is to be shared between the Russian band and four others, including Rachel Corrie, the American activist crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer in Rafah in 2003, and the late writer Christopher Hitchens.

They could not decide between Pussy Riot and Hitchens?!!

It's insulting for Hitch to even been included in this, let alone be one of 5 (more if one counts each member of Pussy Riot)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -Riot.html

Yoko Ono is a bloody imbecile.

stupid cunt

[Lsuoma]

The peace award is to be shared between the Russian band and four others, including Rachel Corrie, the American activist crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer in Rafah in 2003, and the late writer Christopher Hitchens.

They could not decide between Pussy Riot and Hitchens?!!

It's insulting for Hitch to even been included in this, let alone be one of 5 (more if one counts each member of Pussy Riot)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -Riot.html

Yoko Ono is a bloody imbecile.

stupid cunt

Merged this in - it's a one-thread forum here, hon...

[rayshul]

More lazy journalists begging to be exploited -

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispa ... ist_schism_/

Loving the comments on that.

Would like to see more anti-A+ journalism articles. (Well, let me rephrase that. How about... truthful A+ articles.)

And yes I could do this myself but I discovered after a very short stint at being a journalist that there's actually nothing in the world I hate more than being a journalist.

[mordacious1]

If you're thinking of Watson while you're in the shower, you're doing something wrong.... :shock:

[Michael K Gray]

If you're thinking of Watson while you're in the shower, you're doing something wrong.... :shock:

No shit, Sherlock.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

If you're thinking of Watson while you're in the shower, you're doing something wrong.... :shock:

Idunno,if you're a het man you could be prolonging your own/your showering partner's pleasure. "Margaret Thatcher naked on a cold day" kindathing.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

...and these wankstains wonder why they get laughed at so much. Every time one of the opens their stupid gobs they will have to authenticate whether the word is potentially offensive to 1,001 minority groups first. The shitstains.

Way to oppress those who have impaired control of their anal sphincters, you nasal douchebucket.

[rayshul]

Reading through this... unfortunately the replies aren't visible, no idea how fucking twitter works ngharhgh.

[Git]

including Rachel Corrie, the American activist crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer in Rafah in 2003,

Ah, St Rachel of the Pancake. A stupid hate-filled terrorist-loving spoilt haemorrhoid who did the world a favour by getting smushed flatter than the Mayor of Flatland.

[sacha]

Talking of sexism and such; I work in an office that is perhaps 96% birds. This week an email circulated among them containing a series of pictures of nude men. "This one's a nice body, forget about the face."
They were literally covering up the faces with a hand on the monitor.
Naturally I created a scene: " We are human beings with agency!" I cried, rushing hither and (way) over thither, sweeping monitors to the floor and stamping the digital depictions of unattainable perfection that the matriarchy uses to silence real men into so many pieces of compu-meat. "And I'm not referring to a modeling agency!"
Of course I did no such thing; I gave no shits. Yet... what had passed seems impossible still! Women objectifying the male body... what crepuscular zone is this in which I live and work?!
Anyway, big love to you all... lots of banking/post office for me at the mo. If anyone has a spare life, I'm trying to get one.
Ps Someone posted a video of Jen's "talk" earlier... I made it to about minute 13. Horrific propaganda, poorly pronounced.
Chris Morris and Nathan Barley posters: kudos. I posted that shit last year, just so we know, that I'm an old timer. Been around the block.
What else? See, there's loads of stuff I think of ( I only generally read this during my fag breaks) but by the time I think of posting there's 15 new pages and "we've" moved on. Did anyone snag Iszi Lawrence ( or whatever her name is) saying she calls Watson a cunt in jest and it's cool boots?
Lastly, Phil, get your spare room ready... I'm coming to stay for a couple of years. Last time I was in Nice I was kicked awake (sur la plage) by the SJS? "Allez-oop!" they said. Fascists.
X

Where have you been, luv?

No surprise about the sexism in your office. I've said before, the women are far worse than the men when it comes to sexual objectification:

If you believe that men are the majority of aggressors, step inside a strip club where men take their clothes off for women, and compare that to a strip club where women take their clothes off for men.

How the fuck can you work in an office with 96% women every bloody day?

I tried to find where Izzy Lawrence calls Becci a cunt, and it's not a problem. Linky?

[sacha]

GT.jpg

(40.43 KiB) Downloaded 284 times

"Some parents think it's bad to use foul language in front of their children. They are total pussies."

http://gqm.ag/Utsq2E

[Tsheo]

Reading through this... unfortunately the replies aren't visible, no idea how fucking twitter works ngharhgh.

Apologies to men everywhere on behalf of women everywhere. I swear normal women don't assume every man they pass in the street is a rapist. They really don't. A+ is so beyond reality. :hand:

[rayshul]

Reading through this... unfortunately the replies aren't visible, no idea how fucking twitter works ngharhgh.

Apologies to men everywhere on behalf of women everywhere. I swear normal women don't assume every man they pass in the street is a rapist. They really don't. A+ is so beyond reality. :hand:

If they do, they need help - genuine help, whether it's counselling or medication. You can't go through life assuming that 50% of the population is going to rape you. The idea of believing that is *terrifying* and completely irrational.

[rayshul]

Although here's something interesting - right now there's more people on A+ than on the Slymepit for what I believe is the first time I've seen it (and I lurk a lot). :? OH GOSH THE MATRIARCHY IS COMING...

[Git]

Although here's something interesting - right now there's more people on A+ than on the Slymepit for what I believe is the first time I've seen it (and I lurk a lot). :? OH GOSH THE MATRIARCHY IS COMING...

Its also the middle of the bloody night/early morning in proper parts of the world.

[Michael K Gray]

Although here's something interesting - right now there's more people on A+ than on the Slymepit for what I believe is the first time I've seen it (and I lurk a lot). :? OH GOSH THE MATRIARCHY IS COMING...

Its also the middle of the bloody night/early morning in proper parts of the world.

Tierra del Fuego?

[Git]

Although here's something interesting - right now there's more people on A+ than on the Slymepit for what I believe is the first time I've seen it (and I lurk a lot). :? OH GOSH THE MATRIARCHY IS COMING...

Its also the middle of the bloody night/early morning in proper parts of the world.

Tierra del Fuego?

Tierra del Fuego factoid: the southern most trees on the planet live there. On Hoste Island. Nothofagus antarctica, which also grows well on the Faroes too apparently.

[Michael K Gray]

Tierra del Fuego factoid: the southern most trees on the planet live there. On Hoste Island. Nothofagus antarctica, which also grows well on the Faroes too apparently.

These trees live in Antarctica. (They are called "Old Growth Forests"!)
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80bea ... 10x457.jpg
OK, they may not be quite as large as the trees in TDF, but givem' a break, eh?
They are older.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Re-reading the comments on this post, I have to wonder if PZ was drunk when commenting:

http://coffeelovingskeptic.com/?p=1542

Oh, and hello Munkhaus, nice to see you again. No guest room, but a nice convertible sofa in the living room.

[mordacious1]

MKG

No shit, Sherlock.

Hey, Abbie said she was thinking about Watson while in the shower, I don't think that's a mentally healthy thing to do (for anyone). Think about Watson, then shower (just my recommendation).

[Michael K Gray]

MKG

No shit, Sherlock.

Hey, Abbie said she was thinking about Watson while in the shower, I don't think that's a mentally healthy thing to do (for anyone). Think about Watson, then shower (just my recommendation).

Sherlock Holmes, John Watson? Washing off shit?
Am I being too subtle here?

[sacha]

Regarding Becky's 'Galileo executed by the Church' vid - I just love the fact that a moment before she utters those foolish words, she says, 'Christians, can you stop just saying stupid things like that?' :lol:

Personally, I couldn't give a shit where she corrected her mistake nine minutes, hours or days after - it's not so much that she was in possession of something she felt was a fact but wasn't, but that she blithely - hubristically, even - decided to share that misbegotten factoid to a large audience without double-checking first. Now, this wouldn't really matter if it was just some nobody on the internet; but this is someone who wants to be taken seriously as a leading player in the skeptic/atheist movement. As such, if she had an ounce of sense, she would've checked her factoids first..

This has been my position all along. She was mocking Christians for saying stupid things, and used an example from history that she did not know any better than them. Do some research before making a video, or writing a blog post, especially if you consider yourself a sceptic, and if you want to be taken seriously as a "leader" of the sceptic community, a video you choose to make public should be the same as a prepared speech.

The other issue (disregarding the argument about how long it took her to acknowledge it in a place where it would be noticed) is that she did not take responsibility for the mistake. She blamed "rage" and then blamed others for scrutinising her words just to find something to mock (she's a victim!). Reliable facts regarding the history of Galileo are ubiquitous. Two minutes on the cesspit of lies prior to filming is all it would have taken.

This is a major historical figure and integral to modern day science and scepticism.
Without a proper acknowledgment of the significance of a professional sceptic who gets paid to speak about scepticism as her career, and wants to be considered a leader and role model, not only making the mistake she made, but the fact that she did it while chastising others with imagined superiority and contempt, when the others relayed incorrect information about the same fucking person.

Still to this day there is no admission without blame. There is only a tiny note on the video itself that appears when she says "executed". Not only does it say "my rage blinded me" but she continues to blame with the rest of the notation, "he wasn't executed, just condemned" as if it is such a slight discrepancy between execution and condemnation, only people who "hate" her, would mention it. There is nothing in regards to it in the notes of the video where she has numerous links posted.
here is the video she posted on her account:
3:13 is where the relevance begins.

Here is her blog post with the video embedded. Not a word written on the post in regards to her mistake: http://skepchick.org/2011/09/please-don ... ick-perry/

As I have previously said, these people are completely incapable of stating "I was wrong".
One cannot consider themselves a sceptic, if they cannot admit they were wrong about something they said when evidence to the contrary is presented.

she deserves to be mocked endlessly for this.

Steersman:
look again at Wooly's admission of her mistake: http://www.isgodasquirrel.blogspot.ca/2 ... -says.html
and compare it to Becci's almost non-existent mention of hers.

(as a side note, but separate from my point, keep in mind that Wooly is just a blogger who does not make a cent from voicing her opinion. She does not claim to be a leader, a role model, or a professional sceptic. She puts herself at risk by voicing opinions that are "condemned" (not executed) by the Baboons, simply because she believes speaking out is important.)


Your apologetics, talk of olive branches, and comments about "equal" behaviour you find inappropriate, your continuous admonishment of the way we choose to voice our contempt, and the need to show the aversion you have towards the pleasure we derive from mocking them.
The logical fallacies you make when arguing. A clear example is the false analogy of comparing Wooly and Becci, that I've explained in detail.
You seem to think it is perfectly acceptable to voice your opinion without having knowledge about something that took place prior to your interest in all of this. The reason you have a lack of knowledge is because of your refusal to search for the information and discussions on topics we spent time researching long ago, and insisting we explain it again just for you, along with expecting us to provide you with the links to the evidence, because you are simply unwilling to make an effort to catch up, but feel that you are entitled to make disparaging remarks about the conclusions we have come to when we disagree. You do not see a problem with being extremely critical of an opposing conclusion when you have none of the background information.
You repremand as if we were children who have a lesson to learn, "glass houses" "mountains out of molehills" "none of us are perfect" cliché after cliche...

and your repetition in insisting that consideration be shown towards them, has become extremely tiresome.

Do you honestly wonder why you are on numerous "ignore" lists?

You are no longer new here. You joined 6 August and have 500 posts at the time I am writing this. I personally gave you a significant amount of time, and numerous chances to prove my initial assessment wrong. It is not that you disagree, it is how you come to those conclusions, and that you are willing to engage in defending your position by disparaging others, without making an effort to make sure you have evidence that supports your position. It is your responsibility. If you choose to criticise another's conclusions, you better have a good reason to do so.

Following a link to Skepchick to get information about what she has been accused of, and using that as your evidence, is something you should be embarrassed by. You may as well be a Baboon.

I personally welcome someone who is more detached, and has a different perspective than most of us, one who is logical and employs critical thinking when reviewing all of the evidence, but arrives at different conclusions.

Steersman may have a different perspective, but he did not reach his conclusions by researching, reviewing evidence, and using logic and critical thinking.

[Guest]

including Rachel Corrie, the American activist crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer in Rafah in 2003,

Ah, St Rachel of the Pancake. A stupid hate-filled terrorist-loving spoilt haemorrhoid who did the world a favour by getting smushed flatter than the Mayor of Flatland.

What's that supposed to mean?
Are you channeling wowbagger or Josh SpokesGay?

Rachel Corrie was basically a hippy peacenik who made the big mistake of thinking her American nationality would protect her from violent death when she tried to prevent the bulldozing of the home of a Palestinian family she had befriended.
terrorist-loving?
Where is the evidence for that? Unless you are equating every Palestinian with terrorism your statement makes no sense whatsoever and just betrays some underlying bigotry of your own.
There are indeed terrorists that get killed and for whom I don't spend a moment regretting but Rachel Corrie was hardly building suicide bombs to strap to children, she was involved in a peaceful protest, the aims of which were simply to keep a family in their home.
You can disagree with her politics (and I certainly don't agree with everything she stood for) but the sort of hate you manifested there is obnoxious.

[BarnOwl]

https://twitter.com/pzmyers/status/248772040348274688

PZ Myers @pzmyers
How often do I have to repeat that I'm a fencesitter? RT @weRincandescent: looks like a lot of fence sitters are being pushed off

"Fencesitter"? "Not directly involved"? "Outsider"? :lol:

[sacha]

It's just struck me that I do get the impression of a shop-window dummy that's come to life as regards Rebecca Watson. Empty inside; cold. Sterile. Plastic. Unfeeling. Yeah, she's basically an Auton.

Anyways, I think I've made my point.

I have been listening to the SGU since before she joined. I have not missed an episode.

I've met her more than once, we have interacted with each other, both one on one, and in front of a group of people, I've been in the same room with her (when she was not on stage) numerous times, and I've watched her. I kept an eye on her enough during the times I went to TAM, that I saw quite a lot.
2009 was when she went from being annoying and sexist, to someone who I could no longer just ignore.

She's not someone I would ever have my back to.

Your perception is spot on.

[Tigzy]

Yes, quite agree and I have said that Rebecca “may well have more than a few sins to atone for” and I probably had something like that list of yours in mind when I made that comment. But it seems to me that making stuff up or making mountains out of molehills doesn’t reflect terribly well on those doing so. For instance, I recently saw on one of Watson’s videos some comment from someone trying to take her to task for having a bookshelf back of her – as if to say it was just a cynical prop to make her look more knowledgeable than she really was. Maybe the person saying that doesn’t have or read many books, but it sure looked like a rather silly comment and said more against them than against Watson.

But that type of thing serves only to discredit whatever other criticisms or arguments one might have. Maybe a rough approximation might be something popularized by Shakespeare: “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion” ....

Well I've already admitted - at unnecessary length, no doubt - that Watson gives me the creeps, and would probably still give me the creeps even if she had lived like a saint. As such, I'm fully aware of my bias as regards her, and know I'm probably more likely to believe something negative about her than the positive. In fairness, I'd say my dislike of Watson began to come about when I started to read what others rather than PeeZee had to say about her, and the 'icky' feeling she gave me didn't start until I began watching her videos. Of course, the creepy feeling she invoked could have been down - in part, at least - to what I knew of her already. Nowadays, I'm more likely to approach any statement or video she makes with a personal bias which isn't in her favour. Still, as the experience of Dr Buzzo shows, seeming creepy is no justification for unwarranted accusations, and I hope I at least preserve the fairness of mind to give her the benefit of the doubt in the light of any potentially serious allegations which aren't backed up by any evidence I can discern (In fact, I think I may have passed this test in at least one respect: I've never bought the idea that Watson and PeeZee are having an affair, despite the occasional insinuation to the contrary. Lack of evidence aside, I guess the idea of Becky and PeeZee snorting like hogs whilst in the throes of (very) fleshy passion comes across as so utterly revolting to me that I can't really believe the universe could be so perverse. Which I admit is probably more a religious feeling than anything, but...well, I hope they're not. Ugh!)

That said, I think the 'Galileo killed by the Church' incident has more importance than would readily appear: again, this is someone who wishes to be taken seriously by the atheist/skeptical community. Failing to double-check a very easily checkable fact before announcing it on a planned Youtube presentation is precisely the blithe disregard for skepticism itself that one finds when a creationist states, in all seriousness, that the world is 6000 years old. Now, if Becky had made her error in a throwaway remark on some forum, then I doubt it would be worth much more than a snicker. But when it's the kind of error one makes in a (presumably) planned video presentation which would be linked to the Skepchick site - and a number of others, no doubt - then she deserves to be called out for it, because such videos are (whether she likes it not) going to be part of her canon as an atheist/skeptical figurehead, in precisely the same manner as Ray Comfort's Banana video being part of his canon as a creationist figurehead.

In short, it makes Becky look like a bad skeptic. Which is just too fuckin bad for her, I guess. Ho ho.

As regards your earlier reference to Einstein: it's interesting, in that he never accepted quantum theory, and never apologised for it, either:

Einstein was displeased with quantum theory and mechanics, despite its acceptance by other physicists, stating "God doesn't play with dice." As Einstein passed away at the age of 76 he still would not accept quantum theory.

But we can accept Einstein's shortcomings in these respects given the amount of truly groundbreaking shit he got absolutely right. Same with Newton, as regards his theology and alchemy. And I have little doubt that if Becky had at least introduced some interesting and thought-provoking ideas to the skeptic/atheist sphere, I for one would be ready to cut her some slack on this. Yet what, exactly, has she contributed, which isn't either asinine, superfluous or even destructive?

MKG

No shit, Sherlock.

Hey, Abbie said she was thinking about Watson while in the shower, I don't think that's a mentally healthy thing to do (for anyone). Think about Watson, then shower (just my recommendation).

Eeewww. I now have an imagine of myself in the Janet Leigh shower scene from Psycho where Becky is trying to stab me with an origami angry vagina...

[rayshul]

Lack of evidence aside, I guess the idea of Becky and PeeZee snorting like hogs whilst in the throes of (very) fleshy passion comes across as so utterly revolting to me that I can't really believe the universe could be so perverse.

Cannot unsee.

[Michael K Gray]

Steersman:
Do you honestly wonder why you are on numerous "ignore" lists?
...You may as well be a Baboon.

I had hoped that Steersman may have been an effective police presence, pointing out our many logical infractions, our descent into group-think but, alas: no.
Have the FfTB no-one who is able to logically engage with us?
Oolon is a lost cause, a member of the Borg who is fighting a losing battle against his assimilation, and Steersman is just bloody boring and entirely vapid:- never actually making a single substantiated point.
PZ, Beccy, Jen! Send us your best champion, I beg of thee.
The two so far have been abject failures.

We could do with the policing and I, for one, would welcome it.

[cunt]

https://twitter.com/pzmyers/status/248772040348274688

PZ Myers @pzmyers
How often do I have to repeat that I'm a fencesitter? RT @weRincandescent: looks like a lot of fence sitters are being pushed off

"Fencesitter"? "Not directly involved"? "Outsider"? :lol:

He's like a rat trying to distance himself from a sinking ship.

[Michael K Gray]

https://twitter.com/pzmyers/status/248772040348274688

PZ Myers @pzmyers
How often do I have to repeat that I'm a fencesitter? RT @weRincandescent: looks like a lot of fence sitters are being pushed off

"Fencesitter"? "Not directly involved"? "Outsider"? :lol:

He's like a rat trying to distance himself from a sinking ship.

Rat? Not Zebra-fish?
Oh no, of course. The crimes of PZ that shall not be mentioned: he is a mass fish slaughterer, for no discernible research reason.
The FfTBorg give him a "Get out of Stuck FREE" pass on this, and other crimes.
Why? Because they worship him as a true Catholic reveres the Pope.
Pure & Simple.
PZ is infallible.
Just ask them whilst the faithful are called to their knees by the tolling bell-end.

[Tigzy]

Steersman:
Do you honestly wonder why you are on numerous "ignore" lists?
...You may as well be a Baboon.

I had hoped that Steersman may have been an effective police presence, pointing out our many logical infractions, our descent into group-think but, alas: no.
Have the FfTB no-one who is able to logically engage with us?
Oolon is a lost cause, a member of the Borg who is fighting a losing battle against his assimilation, and Steersman is just bloody boring and entirely vapid:- never actually making a single substantiated point.
PZ, Beccy, Jen! Send us your best champion, I beg of thee.
The two so far have been abject failures.

We could do with the policing and I, for one, would welcome it.

I don't think Steersman could be rightly described as an FfTBer - hasn't he been banned from a number of blogs there? Personally, I'm okay with Steers' contributions here. Sure, there's many times I think 'Oh FFS!' when reading his posts, but being under no obligation to respond to anything he or anyone writes, I can't really see the problem. And despite what one might think about the inherent quality or style of his posts, I'd rather put up with his contrarianism than see the Slymepit embark upon the slippery slope of only entertaining 'acceptable' commentators - cos we all know where that leads.

[Michael K Gray]

We could do with the policing and I, for one, would welcome it.

I don't think Steersman could be rightly described as an FfTBer - hasn't he been banned from a number of blogs there? Personally, I'm okay with Steers' contributions here. Sure, there's many times I think 'Oh FFS!' when reading his posts, but being under no obligation to respond to anything he or anyone writes, I can't really see the problem. And despite what one might think about the inherent quality or style of his posts, I'd rather put up with his contrarianism than see the Slymepit embark upon the slippery slope of only entertaining 'acceptable' commentators - cos we all know where that leads.

I see your position, but don't agree.
If this is best that any opposition have, then it is entirely without worth.
Even the most hard of thinking amongst us must surely have briefly contemplated his list of 2[1] "arguments" before posting, even when intoxicated.

Nugatory = Steersman.

Are you able to point me to any of his countless contributions, the content of which might have been an honest novel revelation to you?
If so, I'd be obliged if you might wish to link to them in your reply.

______________________
[1] I am giving him the benefit of the doubt with that sum.

[Scented Nectar]

Hey, Abbie said she was thinking about Watson while in the shower, I don't think that's a mentally healthy thing to do (for anyone). Think about Watson, then shower (just my recommendation).

She was probably having a cold shower in order to stave off horniness until an appropriate time. Under those circumstances, I suspect that also thinking about Watson would be an additional measure which would ensure success.

[Scented Nectar]

Hey, Lsuoma, are you back now from your time away? If so, could you make my name blue again? It's nice to be trusted with it, but I just can't handle the responsibility or properly know what I'm doing. I don't want to delete a thread by accident or anything else horrible like that. I don't want such powers, please. :|

[Michael K Gray]

Hey, Lsuoma, are you back now from your time away? If so, could you make my name blue again? It's nice to be trusted with it, but I just can't handle the responsibility or properly know what I'm doing. I don't want to delete a thread by accident or anything else horrible like that. I don't want such powers, please. :|

Remember, you have been given absolute power to bind and to loose, but the greater the power, the more terrible its responsibility.

— Fyodor Dostoevsky, (after R. Watson, not Spideymanz)

[Tigzy]

We could do with the policing and I, for one, would welcome it.

I don't think Steersman could be rightly described as an FfTBer - hasn't he been banned from a number of blogs there? Personally, I'm okay with Steers' contributions here. Sure, there's many times I think 'Oh FFS!' when reading his posts, but being under no obligation to respond to anything he or anyone writes, I can't really see the problem. And despite what one might think about the inherent quality or style of his posts, I'd rather put up with his contrarianism than see the Slymepit embark upon the slippery slope of only entertaining 'acceptable' commentators - cos we all know where that leads.

I see your position, but don't agree.
If this is best that any opposition have, then it is entirely without worth.
Even the most hard of thinking amongst us must surely have briefly contemplated his list of 2[1] "arguments" before posting, even when intoxicated.

Nugatory = Steersman.

Are you able to point me to any of his countless contributions, the content of which might have been an honest novel revelation to you?
If so, I'd be obliged if you might wish to link to them in your reply.

______________________
[1] I am giving him the benefit of the doubt with that sum.

Well...he makes me laugh. He still doesn't give me the horn though.

And I think his being an obtuse contrarian is contribution enough. Personally speaking, I find that his presence to, at least, is good for keeping my inner baboon in check, and his challenges - insubstantial though they might be - are still enough to sometimes make me stop and check things out. So far, he's provided a good service in keeping things clear about the reasons for my antipathy towards the baboons. It never hurts to be challenged on some point or another. And if I find his challenge to be that insubstantial or pointless...I simply ignore it and don't respond. Simples!

And besides, why should best be a criteria for an 'acceptable' commentator? What would constitute 'best' anyway?

I also have a dream...a dream that one day, Strange Gods Before Me might join us. And that he would engage with Steersman. It would truly be a clash of the wittering titans, and quite possibly epic to behold.

[cunt]

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

[franc]

I don't think Steersman could be rightly described as an FfTBer - hasn't he been banned from a number of blogs there? Personally, I'm okay with Steers' contributions here. Sure, there's many times I think 'Oh FFS!' when reading his posts, but being under no obligation to respond to anything he or anyone writes, I can't really see the problem. And despite what one might think about the inherent quality or style of his posts, I'd rather put up with his contrarianism than see the Slymepit embark upon the slippery slope of only entertaining 'acceptable' commentators - cos we all know where that leads.

Contrarianism implies taking an opposing view supported with your own research. One of the greatest contrarians was Hitch.

Taking an opposing view without researching, being utterly uninformed, apathetic, and cobbling together annoying counter arguments from tabloid trash, i.e. Skepchick, and then feeling entitled that others must spoon feed proof that is readily available and has been discussed ad nauseam or lose the argument by default is not being contrarian. It is being an annoying worthless shit.

Steersman's contrarianism amounts to creationists babbling "what about the gaps?!?!" and expecting a respectful response.

[Michael K Gray]

And besides, why should best be a criteria for an 'acceptable' commentator?

That is at the central NUB of the matter, my dear Tigzy.
I care not for what is acceptable, for that is the minimum requirement for effective contribution.
The Nadir.
Rock-bottom.
I care for what is the most robustly effective critique of any argument that we have forwarded to date.
Not the least effective, or "acceptable".
I used to hold this view that insipid 'reaction' (for that is all it is) was for the good, years ago. But the endless lack of evidence from so-called skeptics with which to counter any and all negative observations has hardened my resolve against these obvious time-wasters.
You may feel the same way in the future.

What would constitute 'best' anyway?

Provable Honesty = Best.

Make what you will of that.

[Tigzy]

If Steers has cobbled together annoying counter arguments from Skepchick et al, then that at least counts as research. Pretty damn poor research I admit, but it's up to him to decide that. In any case...I've now realised I've maneouvred myself in a position where I'm defending on behalf of Steers and frankly, I don't like him that much. Besides, once he gets online, I'm sure he'll be itching to take up the subject himself. So for now, I'm gonna do a Greta cos I've got work to be getting on with anyways...

[Michael K Gray]

If Steers has cobbled together annoying counter arguments from Skepchick et al, then that at least counts as research. Pretty damn poor research I admit, but it's up to him to decide that. In any case...I've now realised I've maneouvred myself in a position where I'm defending on behalf of Steers and frankly, I don't like him that much. Besides, once he gets online, I'm sure he'll be itching to take up the subject himself. So for now, I'm gonna do a Greta cos I've got work to be getting on with anyways...

So, you are about to congratulate the odious Kirk Cameron for having 'researched' the case against Evilution by citing The Discovery Institute?
Sounds like an exact parallel to me.

[CommanderTuvok]

Hey, Abbie said she was thinking about Watson while in the shower, I don't think that's a mentally healthy thing to do (for anyone). Think about Watson, then shower (just my recommendation).

She was probably having a cold shower in order to stave off horniness until an appropriate time. Under those circumstances, I suspect that also thinking about Watson would be an additional measure which would ensure success.

On the subject, I have found that thinking about Rebecca Watson can stop you from climaxing too soon.

[oolon]

Steersman:
Do you honestly wonder why you are on numerous "ignore" lists?
...You may as well be a Baboon.

I had hoped that Steersman may have been an effective police presence, pointing out our many logical infractions, our descent into group-think but, alas: no.
Have the FfTB no-one who is able to logically engage with us?
Oolon is a lost cause, a member of the Borg who is fighting a losing battle against his assimilation, and Steersman is just bloody boring and entirely vapid:- never actually making a single substantiated point.
PZ, Beccy, Jen! Send us your best champion, I beg of thee.
The two so far have been abject failures.

We could do with the policing and I, for one, would welcome it.

Policing! I thought you were a free for all freethinking collective, what needs to be policed?

As for my assimilation the only thing that has stopped me being banned I think was PZ's bad tummy... Is assimilation impossible after banning? The 'repudiation' thread got very boring but seeing A.Noyd and Nerd of Redhead constantly mis-representing my position as being an apologist for you lot tempted me into a few piss takes and objections that kept it going for far too long. What would happen if I was banned? I could see the opinion of people on there saying I'm a despicable shit or a misogynist or gullible fool and take PZs ban as confirmation that he thinks that - he probably does, so what? Nerd and Ing now think I absolutely believe any bullshit that I come across if I raise the smallest objection to the accepted version of reality... I'll choose to take this as an opportunity to try and take the piss out of them rather than get all miffed about it.

In terms of policing what would the Mr or Ms Logic from FtBs have to contend with? The logic of pouring over all the FtB and Skepchick mistakes and hypocrisy to prove some sort of point? I'd fail there miserably as I just don't see the relevance to how I approach any of their thoughts or actions, something like A+ stands on its own as an idea and will be judged on any long term net positive benefits to the wider atheist community. However for group-think central here it is approached as immediately bad and plans of attack through ridicule formulated without any consideration of possible benefit - not a lot of clear logical thought on the pro's and con's of it seen here... Please prove me wrong with examples of the possible benefits of A+ as discussed clearly and logically on the Slymepit...

Quite happy to accept that this place is piss-take central of a bunch of pompous bloggers... But calls for 'policing' the purity of your sceptical thinking while at the same time dismissing a member of your community because they challenge the group-think (albeit in a verbose way) comes across as pompous bullshit and worthy of ridicule as well. Logic, who needs it when it interferes with my hate!

[Michael K Gray]

On the subject, I have found that thinking about Rebecca Watson can stop you from climaxing too soon.

Speaking of which...
You are way overdue for your turn for the next scene after these two:
Series 4, Episode 1, Scene II

FX: Shimmers sinusoidally into "past scene mode", with attendent woo-woo sound.
Vaseline Dreamy flashback as of reading blog-post in the first person:

Scene II:
Lard-end's filthy trailer, indoors. PM.
(Greg is peering intently into microscope)
Quick! Gimme a pen, or something sharp! I gotta spear these tiny non-Harvard aliens that appear before me!
My Kinkdom for a lance!
Oh, buggeration and cunty-bollox, they are bloody male animicules!
So much for my (Harvard) handthropology degree Kelvin in the Institute of Feminist A+ Studies at the U-bend of MiniSoda.
Thinks: I wonder what my old lame Harvard "supervisors" think of my vast fame and accolades now, eh?
FX: Recursively shimmers sinusoidally into "past scene mode", with attendent Harvard woo-woo sound.

Series 4, Episode 1, Scene III

{The rockery/garden outside of Harvard’s Administrative Complex}
{Professor Huxley, walking and talking with Dr Gwyneth Sanderson}
PH: Did you feel a "recursive shimering" feeling just then, Gayle?
GS: Who?
PH: Oh fuck, sorry, I meant Gwyneth.
Doctor Gayle...
Doctor Gwyneth Sanderson at last!

Are you all right?

GS: Shimmers sinusoidally into "past scene mode", with attendent woo-woo sound.
Vaseline Dreamy flashback as of reading blog-post in the first person...

For that is the very thread devoted to such a continuation...
Do please try and pay attention Commander!
Damnit Jim, I need a person, not a freak!

[Trophy]

Please prove me wrong with examples of the possible benefits of A+ as discussed clearly and logically on the Slymepit...

I personally support the general goals of A++ but I believe many of its leaders or organizers are assholes and unpleasant people. There you go. And I'm not sure what more do you want? Are there a lot of benefits to groups dedicated to good causes but led by assholes? I'm not sure but I don't think so.

[Dick Strawkins]

Please prove me wrong with examples of the possible benefits of A+ as discussed clearly and logically on the Slymepit...

Well, there are conflicting aims being described by various of the A+ luminaries but taking one of the aims - that of creating a 'safe-space' for those who are upset by the actions of internet trolls - then I suppose that could be seen as a positive for those particular individuals (and the rest of us who are mighty tired of their constant overreactions to trolling.)

They could, with trivial ease, set up a private members-only website and forum where they wouldn't be bothered by the 'haters'.
They could even arrange conferences where they pre-vet everyone who is attending to ensure that undesirables are not allowed. There they could have a 'safe-space' where there is no danger of dissent from their views.

Do you, oolon, think that anyone here is against this sort of development?
I suspect that most of us would be delighted if they went down this separatist route.

It seems to me that Aplus has highlighted the fact that there is a significant proportion of atheists (mainly those in the US for some reason) who find mainstream atheism to be intolerable (seeing Dawkins, Grothe and Russell Blackford as woman hating, rape culture supporting misogynists, for example)
Having the Aplusers leave to form their own society could have benefits for both groups.

See! A positive take on A+ with no insults!

[Michael K Gray]

In terms of policing what would the Mr or Ms Logic from FtBs have to contend with? The logic of pouring over all the FtB and Skepchick mistakes and hypocrisy to prove some sort of point? I'd fail there miserably as I just don't see the relevance to how I approach any of their thoughts or actions, something like A+ stands on its own as an idea and will be judged on any long term net positive benefits to the wider atheist community.

Therein lieth la difference.
You care about short-term-political-goals that are buttressed with provable lies, (in the service of short-term comity), whereas I care about long-term truth and reality.
Horses for courses.

Short-term Politics versus Long-term Truth.

I know on which opposites the both of us remain.

[franc]

Please prove me wrong with examples of the possible benefits of A+ as discussed clearly and logically on the Slymepit...

Well, there are conflicting aims being described by various of the A+ luminaries but taking one of the aims - that of creating a 'safe-space' for those who are upset by the actions of internet trolls

It just struck me now, and I am boggled it hasn't before. You know what really reeks about "safe spaces" for these precious snowflakes whose feelings are far more important than mine or anyone else "not of the faith"? It is precisely the same head space as -

http://www.pajiba.com/assets_c/2011/01/ ... -18848.jpg

Used to justify social policing of everything from guns to smut to pit bulls. Pretty much anything can be justified for shutdown by this vilest of all appeals to emotion. I don't see this squealing about "safe space" as anything different. "Safe space" for who? Certainly not for any individual with a spine and that can walk on its hind legs.

[Michael K Gray]

Safe space" for who? Certainly not for any individual with a spine and that can walk on its hind legs.

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/lemurs-liv ... scar-4.jpg
Lemur alone! U R oppressing me! I is mother!

[The Pelagic Argosy]

Reading through this... unfortunately the replies aren't visible, no idea how fucking twitter works ngharhgh.

I know next to fuck nothing about Twitter but you can see the conversation on Skavau's page (by opening the view conversation link). I wonder if Skavau's comments don't show up on Twatticus_Twamber's page because shit* has blocked Skavau: I notice TT blubs to Skavau about gratuitous personal insults—par for the course (of enraged golf).


* Getting all PC here: shit = she/he/it

[Michael K Gray]

In this Pat Condell rant, replace "Islam" with "Atheism+", and "Muslims" with FfTBoggers, and the result is indistinguishable.
Give it a go:
[youtube]GCXHPKhRCVg[/youtube]

[sacha]

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

brilliant

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

* Getting all PC here: shit = she/he/it

I love it!

[sacha]

@jonmilne from previous Thunderdome thread:

It’s not like McGraw didn’t have the freedom to write several response blog posta as well as presumably use Twitter to express her outrage at Watson’s so-called “dirty tactics”. Hell, it’s not even like McGraw couldn’t have arranged some other public speaking outlet where she could have outlined her issues with Watson there.

Aratina Cage:

What’s more, McGraw did use an official organizational blog to criticize all 10 seconds of the “Guys? Don’t do that.” part of Watson’s YouTube video. She did that right before Watson’s keynote presentation was about to be given. And not just her, but others also. They went after Watson on Twitter and on YouTube besides the blogs. All doing so right before her keynote presentation to which some of them would be attending (as many of them were associated in some way with the organization Watson was presenting at).

Do you (the general you, that is) think they could have possibly written her or called her and told her about the differences they had with what she said instead of just talking dirt about her (on official blogs! and elsewhere) behind her back? These were people who were part of or associated with the very same organization as Watson. They could have easily gotten ahold of her if they had tried. It’s the same level of disregard that DJ Grothe showed by talking dirt about Watson and Co. behind their backs instead of talking to them.

Watson did not have much of a choice in how she handled this matter; she was pressured to respond to the growing clamor as anyone with her fortitude would be, and she chose to respond directly to some of the prime voices of the hubbub in the audience. I’m almost sorry it was McGraw if she wasn’t ready to be called out on it as appears to have been the case, but she did write it on an official organizational blog for all to see and should have been ready to reflect critically on what she wrote from that moment on.
So to add to what you wrote, yes, lots of different avenues could have been explored for a conversation between Watson and whoever else had a bone to pick with her at the time or wanted to make an example out of her for whatever purpose after the keynote and before. Lots of things could have been done differently by McGraw (or at least by other instigators if McGraw was pressured to write that herself). I don’t want anyone to overlook the fact that they were already expressing their outrage at Watson on social media apps and official organizational channels before she gave her keynote presentation.

Aratina Cage again:

I’m just trying to make sure that the history of it is not erased, Improbable Joe. But I know it wasn’t a big deal for either of them after it happened (McGraw seems to have moved on fairly quickly although she was a little shocked and upset after the keynote and wrote about it, as did Watson), but it was a big deal for the slimepitters and their backers. I want people to know about what prompted Watson at the keynote presentation to even talk about it in the first place, which was a landslide of MRAism.

also see comment #24 and #25

first comment above is here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-460023

[Lsuoma]

Hey, Lsuoma, are you back now from your time away? If so, could you make my name blue again? It's nice to be trusted with it, but I just can't handle the responsibility or properly know what I'm doing. I don't want to delete a thread by accident or anything else horrible like that. I don't want such powers, please. :|

Done, you pleb!

[Git]

including Rachel Corrie, the American activist crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer in Rafah in 2003,

Ah, St Rachel of the Pancake. A stupid hate-filled terrorist-loving spoilt haemorrhoid who did the world a favour by getting smushed flatter than the Mayor of Flatland.

What's that supposed to mean?
Are you channeling wowbagger or Josh SpokesGay?

Rachel Corrie was basically a hippy peacenik who made the big mistake of thinking her American nationality would protect her from violent death when she tried to prevent the bulldozing of the home of a Palestinian family she had befriended.

Not true. The bulldozers were collapsing tunnels and fortifications on rough, unoccupied ground. There were no houses involved.

terrorist-loving?

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7098 ... e-flag.jpg

Some peacenik eh?

Also, the ISM has a history of sheltering and making excuses for terrorists, including suicide bombers. It hides weapons for, and also raises money for terrorist organisations:

http://joshuapundit.blogspot.co.uk/2012 ... orrie.html

Where is the evidence for that? Unless you are equating every Palestinian with terrorism your statement makes no sense whatsoever and just betrays some underlying bigotry of your own.

non-sequitur of the century there.

There are indeed terrorists that get killed and for whom I don't spend a moment regretting but Rachel Corrie was hardly building suicide bombs to strap to children, she was involved in a peaceful protest, the aims of which were simply to keep a family in their home.
You can disagree with her politics (and I certainly don't agree with everything she stood for) but the sort of hate you manifested there is obnoxious.

Its not hate. Its merely observing that the hate-filled terrorist-loving spoilt haemorrhoid got what she deserved. She wanted to play with the big boys? Well, then don't be surprised if the big boys play by the big boy rules. If you lie down with dogs, don't be surprised you get fleas.

[The Pelagic Argosy]

Aratina Cage again:

but it was a big deal for the slimepitters and their backers.

Backers? I demand to see the Slyme Pit accounts! And I demand to have some booze! And if we have backers, the finest wines known to humanity.

[The Pelagic Argosy]

In this Pat Condell rant, replace "Islam" with "Atheism+", and "Muslims" with FfTBoggers, and the result is indistinguishable.
Give it a go:
[Pat Condell]

Egads, man! [hidey]Pat Condell??[/hidey]. Don't you know there may be baboons reading the thread? Do you want to create a world shortage of fainting couches?

[Guest]

Its not hate. Its merely observing that the hate-filled terrorist-loving spoilt haemorrhoid got what she deserved. She wanted to play with the big boys? Well, then don't be surprised if the big boys play by the big boy rules. If you lie down with dogs, don't be surprised you get fleas.

Burn a picture of a US flag and you deserve to be run over by a bulldozer?
What are you, ten years old?