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

AKAHorace wrote:Oolong may have been wrong about some things but meant well, tried to defend us on PZ's site and got banned because of it.

Is he a variety of tea? We all know the shit that can develop with references to tea and coffee!!!

AKAHorace wrote:

ReneeHendricks wrote:Seriously. Why the fuck would I want to burn my eyes and perform fellatio on my brain by reading something from Oolong if I *know* it's going to be double dipped in shit? It seems to me that the most reasonable option is to place them in the "foe" list and not read their constant stream of diarrhea. Fairly simple, right?

This is a bit like the mentality of the Pharyngulites. You sound like Sally Strange when you write like this.

Oolong may have been wrong about some things but meant well, tried to defend us on PZ's site and got banned because of it.

No, the Pharyngulites want to stop you commenting. That's the important difference.

I've mentioned my feelings on this before, in relation to Oolon, if you don't think you are willing to engage with someone because you find the way they act unpleasant and feel to do so is going to piss you off... then you don't have to. There's nothing about free speech that says you have to read everything or engage with everything. Do what's comfortable for you, but don't impose on what anyone else wants to do/who they want to interact with.

rayshul wrote:

AKAHorace wrote:

ReneeHendricks wrote:Seriously. Why the fuck would I want to burn my eyes and perform fellatio on my brain by reading something from Oolong if I *know* it's going to be double dipped in shit? It seems to me that the most reasonable option is to place them in the "foe" list and not read their constant stream of diarrhea. Fairly simple, right?

This is a bit like the mentality of the Pharyngulites. You sound like Sally Strange when you write like this.

Oolong may have been wrong about some things but meant well, tried to defend us on PZ's site and got banned because of it.

No, the Pharyngulites want to stop you commenting. That's the important difference.

I've mentioned my feelings on this before, in relation to Oolon, if you don't think you are willing to engage with someone because you find the way they act unpleasant and feel to do so is going to piss you off... then you don't have to. There's nothing about free speech that says you have to read everything or engage with everything. Do what's comfortable for you, but don't impose on what anyone else wants to do/who they want to interact with.

And I have made the suggestion it not be further done on this thread. Oolon is a waste of a supernova.

rayshul wrote:
I've mentioned my feelings on this before, in relation to Oolon, if you don't think you are willing to engage with someone because you find the way they act unpleasant and feel to do so is going to piss you off... then you don't have to. There's nothing about free speech that says you have to read everything or engage with everything. Do what's comfortable for you, but don't impose on what anyone else wants to do/who they want to interact with.

Yup, spot on.

Re: Oolon crying.

He can't really complain when people choose NOT to read his tripe, especially as he didn't raise the issue (AFAIK) about moderation and censorship over at Baboon Central.

The Pit is a space where you don't get censored - something increasingly rare in the Atheist/Skeptic community.

Dilurk wrote:
And I have made the suggestion it not be further done on this thread. Oolon is a waste of a supernova.

And I do not agree with you here. When it comes to snakes, music, bicycles and sexuality, other threads can be open easily. Oolon, while being a pain in the ass at times, seems to kinda stick to the main topics of this thread (FC5/6/7 and A+). I see no reasons so far to send s/h/i/t to another thread. Just skip the posts, easy as pie.

CommanderTuvok wrote:Re: Oolon crying.

He can't really complain when people choose NOT to read his tripe, especially as he didn't raise the issue (AFAIK) about moderation and censorship over at Baboon Central.

The Pit is a space where you don't get censored - something increasingly rare in the Atheist/Skeptic community.

Mostly my point.

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Mines would be :

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglan ... hp4M-eIpAA

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglan ... mHbkTmjdQA

Pretty basic, I know.

ain't nothing wrong with dose, all four of them.

acathode wrote:You have more or less the same reaction when you try to point out the problems with their Schrödinger's Rapist shtick, assuming they can't banhammer your ass and instead keep up the discussion, they always seem to end up with insisting that 1) all the problems you list are null and void, because you don't simply didn't understand SR, and 2) it's not at all meant as a insult or a way to just shut down any discussion.
An excuse that quickly fall apart when you look at the way the A+ers actually use SR, basically throwing it at anyone "who just doesn't get it".

This is always hilarious, especially when the Talking Prune is involved. From her B&W "about" -

Fighting fashionable nonsense

At the beginning it focused mainly on various kinds of pseudoscience and epistemic relativism, aka postmodernism. The latter prompted an increasing focus on moral or cultural relativism and a defense of universalism and human rights.

I just wish cobweb cunt would clarify, her wording is ambiguous. Does she fight this stuff (which is being dishonest) or use it as a business model (which makes everything make sense)?

I'll try to clarify my position before hitting the pillow:

JCW: Agreed, nothing wrong at all. I was 9 at the time, so with inflation it would be 7 boobs by now, if my math isn't too fucked up.

As for Oolon, I think as long as they get answers from commenters here, they cannot claim censorship or banning. They can say whatever they want anywhere else, but the fact that people here adress them, on the main thread, even, is proff there is no censorship. And to do it politely is even more potent. Feel free to disagree, that's just my stance.

Pillow, head, meet you after toothbrush.

G'night all!

welch wrote:

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Mines would be :

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglan ... hp4M-eIpAA

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglan ... mHbkTmjdQA

Pretty basic, I know.

ain't nothing wrong with dose, all four of them.

I had a self reflecting giggle at my paranoia this morning catching up on the pit on tapatalk in a crowded bus.

TheMan wrote:



I had a self reflecting giggle at my paranoia this morning catching up on the pit on tapatalk in a crowded bus.

Maybe you are not familiar with French newspaper kiosques:

https://www.google.com/search?num=100&h ... 0AWYooDIDw

(sorry for the long URL, heading to bed).

We here don't really care about images of naked or semi-naked women. Porn magazines (and I'm not talking Play Boy here) are very common on public displays. Make of that what you will.

Ok, pillow!

ReneeHendricks wrote:

Steersman wrote: ….
But you still haven’t addressed the fact that, at least from my perspective, Dilurk’s accusation against him – “argumentum ad populum” is apparently wrong. Maybe you’ll take my word for it and maybe you’ll take Dilurk’s. But if I’m right and in the latter case then you’re going to be wrong but thinking you’re right – somewhat problematic to say the least and not really consistent with being a skeptic ….

My point - you can read a shit ton of stuff I've put out over the years as Renee Hendricks and as Susanne Bullo. If you find it to be a giant heap of crap, you can opt not to read future stuff by me. If, in the future, my particular "bent" changes to something you'd be more inclined to engage, then you can opt to read my crap once again. That is my point. Simple. Straight to the point. I won't read absolute shit by the Westboro Baptist Church because I know the particular "bent" they have. Does that clarify things?

Sort of. But how will I know if your particular “bent” has changed if I don’t periodically check the waters? And I would say that WBC is an extreme case as their premises are largely based on fictions and wishful thinking if not outright delusions. Not cricket to tar everyone with that brush as otherwise I would never read any of your stuff if I’d ever thought any of it was crap.

Seriously. Why the fuck would I want to burn my eyes and perform fellatio on my brain by reading something from [Oolon] if I *know* it's going to be double dipped in shit? …. Fairly simple, right?

Not really as I would say that qualifies as a very serious logical fallacy or error – sort like saying that all swans are white just because all of the swans you’ve seen are white. You might take a look at the Wikipedia article on the topic which describes the generalized problem in more detail.

However, you should definitely take a close look at the following video from Justicar/IntegralMath which might clarify my point. As he says, “In order to critique a particular work you do actually have to have read the work”. And saying something is “double dipped in shit” even though you haven’t actually read the article just isn’t going to cut it.

[youtube]Rs7yZyTIe5I[/youtube]

oolon, slimy turd wrote:

So the ‘evidence’ for a general statement of not well received is a bit lacking in terms of raw numbers. Not well received by a small number of people, some of which then engaged in an unpleasant campaign to ridicule her for having an idea, would be a more accurate statement.

I was not saying A+ are in any sense 'correct' about anything because they have more numbers than the slymepit or anywhere else, just that the numbers show that the statement that it 'was not well received' is to be considered pretty dodgy. Especially given this place has been going for years promoting itself as the 'alternative' to the horrible hegemony of FtBs and has managed no where near the number on the A+ forum. So I know which side of the argument has been 'well received'... Please tell me how I should frame that argument to miss your logical fallacy Dilurk! Derp!

Massive failure from Derpity Dilurk, especially given I'm sure I've littered the internet with bad arguments and you choose one which is clearly not what you paint it as... Try harder :doh:

and your sole evidence that the statement is not well-received is based on the numbers on A+ being larger than here. That's exactly "arguing from popularity", aka, A+ has more people, therefore, our points that their points are not that popular are wrong. Were people here to create 5000 sockpuppet accounts, would you then reverse your statement? Don't answer, we already know you wouldn't. Instead, you'd start on about how numbers mean nothing, blah, blahdy, blah. Because that's what you do. Really, you're positively Romneyesque in how continuously fluid any stand you take is.

You cannot be as stupid as you wish us to believe you are. The fact you can type words, even if the way you use them is moronic, shows that.

bhoytony wrote:and yet again Mission Accomplished.

and yet we didn't start crying about your fucking bicycle argument. Now its your ox's turn to get gored. Deal.

ReneeHendricks wrote:

Lsuoma wrote:

ReneeHendricks wrote:At the risk of sounding really snarky, I have to admit that I like seeing "Oolon's" posts showing as not viewable unless I want to :D

Watch out - the little turdbox has claimed that ignoring his whines are tantamount to banning. You'll be accused of censorship next!

LOL So, walking away from the asshat is censorship? Love it ;)

It gives him a sad in his teeny peeny.

CommanderTuvok wrote:Is Oolon still butthurt? What's up? Missing PZ's cock?

:lol:

is he ever not? (on either count)

ReneeHendricks wrote:Seriously. Why the fuck would I want to burn my eyes and perform fellatio on my brain by reading something from Oolong if I *know* it's going to be double dipped in shit? It seems to me that the most reasonable option is to place them in the "foe" list and not read their constant stream of diarrhea. Fairly simple, right?

OMG WHY JOO SO CENSORING!!!!!!

AKAHorace wrote:

ReneeHendricks wrote:Seriously. Why the fuck would I want to burn my eyes and perform fellatio on my brain by reading something from Oolong if I *know* it's going to be double dipped in shit? It seems to me that the most reasonable option is to place them in the "foe" list and not read their constant stream of diarrhea. Fairly simple, right?

This is a bit like the mentality of the Pharyngulites. You sound like Sally Strange when you write like this.

Oolong may have been wrong about some things but meant well, tried to defend us on PZ's site and got banned because of it.

If that's how Oolong "defends" people, i'd rather be attacked. Given his incompetence, there's far less likely chance of injury to me.

AKAHorace wrote:

ReneeHendricks wrote:Seriously. Why the fuck would I want to burn my eyes and perform fellatio on my brain by reading something from Oolong if I *know* it's going to be double dipped in shit? It seems to me that the most reasonable option is to place them in the "foe" list and not read their constant stream of diarrhea. Fairly simple, right?

This is a bit like the mentality of the Pharyngulites. You sound like Sally Strange when you write like this.

Oolong may have been wrong about some things but meant well, tried to defend us on PZ's site and got banned because of it.

He meant well? Please. He rides the fence for the LOLs and nothing else. He's a floater in the toilet of life.

welch wrote:

ReneeHendricks wrote:

Lsuoma wrote:

ReneeHendricks wrote:At the risk of sounding really snarky, I have to admit that I like seeing "Oolon's" posts showing as not viewable unless I want to :D

Watch out - the little turdbox has claimed that ignoring his whines are tantamount to banning. You'll be accused of censorship next!

LOL So, walking away from the asshat is censorship? Love it ;)

It gives him a sad in his teeny peeny.

If his teeny peeny is sad, all the better.

welch wrote:

ReneeHendricks wrote:Seriously. Why the fuck would I want to burn my eyes and perform fellatio on my brain by reading something from Oolong if I *know* it's going to be double dipped in shit? It seems to me that the most reasonable option is to place them in the "foe" list and not read their constant stream of diarrhea. Fairly simple, right?

OMG WHY JOO SO CENSORING!!!!!!

'Cuz that's how I roll, homies :D

welch wrote:

oolon, slimy turd wrote: ...
I was not saying A+ are in any sense 'correct' about anything because they have more numbers than the slymepit or anywhere else, just that the numbers show that the statement that it 'was not well received' is to be considered pretty dodgy. ....

and your sole evidence that the statement is not well-received is based on the numbers on A+ being larger than here. That's exactly "arguing from popularity", aka, A+ has more people, therefore, our points that their points are not that popular are wrong. Were people here to create 5000 sockpuppet accounts, would you then reverse your statement? Don't answer, we already know you wouldn't. Instead, you'd start on about how numbers mean nothing, blah, blahdy, blah. Because that's what you do. Really, you're positively Romneyesque in how continuously fluid any stand you take is. ....

I think you’re missing the point. The question isn’t which side is right – using the “argumentum ad populum”, but which side is the most popular. And a definition of popular is “widely liked or appreciated” by which the numbers quoted proves the point: Jen’s “new idea” was in fact “well received” by the majority [approx 2000/2300 (population of A+/(pop A+ plus pop SlymePit)].

Although I'll concede that those numbers - 2000 & 2300 - are only a small sample and anything but random. But that was, I expect, the reason for Oolon's "dodgy" ….

bhoytony wrote:I'm surprised that, as we seem to be involved in an episode of I Love 1975 crossed with a road safety campaign against Dangerous Drivers, nobody has brought up that most cliched shorthand for the '70s, the Raleigh Chopper. Come, on some original thinker must mention it.

I will see your Chopper (fnarr fnarr) and raise you a Chopper Sprint:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8328/8107 ... d6e2d1.jpg
I actually had one just like that - Fire Bronze - for a short while. They were always rare and apparently are quite valuable now. I'm glad to trade being a Sprint owner now though for something worth far more: Having been a Sprint owner as a child and not being dead!

Head down, arse up, centre of gravity who knows where. If you hit a matchstickon that thing at any speed, you were straight over the bars. Think the bike's ugly? Wait 'til you see what it makes of your face!

I just noticed in the pic: The bars are a maximum height, the seat at minimum. Someone's tried to make that thing safe to ride. wont work. Looks like a genuine 70s carpet too!

Lsuoma wrote:

bhoytony wrote:With all this masturbating over Sally James and Pan's People, I'm pretty sure that the Slymepit is surrounded by an angry mob of baboons preparing to burn it to the ground.
Personally I was more of a Janet Ellis wanker.

If it raises Baboollie Blood Pressure, I'm all for it. Fuck 'em.

And though I was too young for The Avengers with Diana Rigg, I found her Emma Peel (M Appeal, geddit?) to be the epitome of teh sexy when I got older. From "A Touch of Brimstone":

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4tby ... o1_500.jpg
Snake picture chosen for Phil's benefit...

There's only one Elvira -

http://snarkerati.com/galleries/index.p ... ion=resize

PeeZus and his disciples seem to think that Austin doesn't count as part of Texas, and therefore it's an acceptable place to visit and one might find a receptive audience there. Why might that be? Let's look at some 2010 Census-based demographics for the largest Texas cities, shall we?

AUSTIN
Non-Hispanic White = 48.7%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) = 35.1
Black or African-American = 8.1%
Asian = 6.3%

SAN ANTONIO (BarnOwl calls this home now)
Non-Hispanic White = 26.6%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) = 63.2%
Black or African-American = 6.9%
Asian = 2.4%

HOUSTON (BarnOwl was a nestling and undergrad fledgling here)
Non-Hispanic White = 26%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) = 44%
Black or African-American = 24%
Asian = 6%

DALLAS (BarnOwl called this home for three years)
Non-Hispanic White = 28.8%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) = 42.4%
Black or African-American = 25%
Asian = 2.9%

Setting aside the fact that I don't really accept the concept of "race" as applied to humans, there is indeed something different about Austin. It's the only one of the four cities listed above that I've never called home, so perhaps I'm no judge, but the 2010 Census data seem to indicate that it's not the same as other Texas cities. And Austin, apparently, is an acceptable city to visit for a convention, because it's "not really part of Texas." Any thoughts on why Austin is OK and why it's not really part of Texas?

rayshul wrote:Quick question - did WB crunch the numbers on the A+ forums?

Can't remember who did. Here -



Slimy Turd is doing what's called "creative accounting" - he's treating A+ forum use the way Rupert Murdoch treats NewsCorp tax deductions. The reality is a few% of the membership generates virtually all of the noise. The reality has been screencapped in real time and often -

http://i.imgur.com/U1Du5.png
http://i.imgur.com/69qM6.png

My 1970s ride was very much like this:

http://modculture.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8 ... 970c-800wi

Except that my dad cut my board from a sheet of aluminum, and I decorated it with dolphin and butterfly stickers.

BarnOwl wrote:PeeZus and his disciples seem to think that Austin doesn't count as part of Texas, and therefore it's an acceptable place to visit and one might find a receptive audience there. Why might that be? Let's look at some 2010 Census-based demographics for the largest Texas

Snip

Setting aside the fact that I don't really accept the concept of "race" as applied to humans, there is indeed something different about Austin. It's the only one of the four cities listed above that I've never called home, so perhaps I'm no judge, but the 2010 Census data seem to indicate that it's not the same as other Texas cities. And Austin, apparently, is an acceptable city to visit for a convention, because it's "not really part of Texas." Any thoughts on why Austin is OK and why it's not really part of Texas?

Exquisitely understated barn owl. Well played.

franc wrote:

rayshul wrote:Quick question - did WB crunch the numbers on the A+ forums?

Slimy Turd is doing what's called "creative accounting" -

What shithead also deliberately ignores is this place is not exclusively anti-A+. There are specific anti-A+ 'tardbook groups, probably ones on Google too. What he could do to add substance to his propaganda is point us to places that are pro-A+, other than the various baboon boards. Except he won't because he can't because there aren't any. A+ has gone many steps beyond even FfFTB - mentioning it anywhere outside of its protectively cocooned and censored "safe" zones elicits nothing other than snickers and derision. There is no support. Anywhere. Reality is pretty grim and cruel - it does not want to submit to Pollyanna delusion.

BarnOwl wrote:PeeZus and his disciples seem to think that Austin doesn't count as part of Texas, and therefore it's an acceptable place to visit and one might find a receptive audience there. Why might that be? Let's look at some 2010 Census-based demographics for the largest Texas cities, shall we?

AUSTIN
Non-Hispanic White = 48.7%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) = 35.1
Black or African-American = 8.1%
Asian = 6.3%

SAN ANTONIO (BarnOwl calls this home now)
Non-Hispanic White = 26.6%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) = 63.2%
Black or African-American = 6.9%
Asian = 2.4%

HOUSTON (BarnOwl was a nestling and undergrad fledgling here)
Non-Hispanic White = 26%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) = 44%
Black or African-American = 24%
Asian = 6%

DALLAS (BarnOwl called this home for three years)
Non-Hispanic White = 28.8%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) = 42.4%
Black or African-American = 25%
Asian = 2.9%

Setting aside the fact that I don't really accept the concept of "race" as applied to humans, there is indeed something different about Austin. It's the only one of the four cities listed above that I've never called home, so perhaps I'm no judge, but the 2010 Census data seem to indicate that it's not the same as other Texas cities. And Austin, apparently, is an acceptable city to visit for a convention, because it's "not really part of Texas." Any thoughts on why Austin is OK and why it's not really part of Texas?

HIS-panics. Gendered pronouns are NOT acceptable. Not even as part of longer words... They like Austin because it's a democrat stronghold and it has the SXSW festival.

And in the '70s, when my fellow school students went motorized it was on the classic sports mopeds, the Honda SS50, the Yamaha FS1-E and the Suzuki AP50. I'm sure Kawasaki had an offering too, but I don't remember what that one was.

I never go one of those, since I was living in kids homes, my family having split when I was 11. And I never ever had a Chopper, either. All I ever had was a Raleigh RSW 15:

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9 ... 0ayN4nRvQ8

That was pre-Noel Edmonds advertising for Raleigh, IIRC.

Actually it was an RSW 11, as pictured, not the 15.

peterb wrote: Exquisitely understated barn owl. Well played.

Thanks, peterb.

Nice Rothko avatar, btw. Have you been to the Rothko Chapel in Houston?

@ cunt -

Bzzzzttt. San Antonio and Houston are also Democrat strongholds. I don't know what the fuck is wrong with Dallas ... must be something in the water.

Do they also have the SXSW festival?

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Mines would be :

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglan ... hp4M-eIpAA

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglan ... mHbkTmjdQA

Pretty basic, I know.

Joe Walsh Agrees.

Steersman wrote:

welch wrote:

oolon, slimy turd wrote: ...
I was not saying A+ are in any sense 'correct' about anything because they have more numbers than the slymepit or anywhere else, just that the numbers show that the statement that it 'was not well received' is to be considered pretty dodgy. ....

and your sole evidence that the statement is not well-received is based on the numbers on A+ being larger than here. That's exactly "arguing from popularity", aka, A+ has more people, therefore, our points that their points are not that popular are wrong. Were people here to create 5000 sockpuppet accounts, would you then reverse your statement? Don't answer, we already know you wouldn't. Instead, you'd start on about how numbers mean nothing, blah, blahdy, blah. Because that's what you do. Really, you're positively Romneyesque in how continuously fluid any stand you take is. ....

I think you’re missing the point. The question isn’t which side is right – using the “argumentum ad populum”, but which side is the most popular. And a definition of popular is “widely liked or appreciated” by which the numbers quoted proves the point: Jen’s “new idea” was in fact “well received” by the majority [approx 2000/2300 (population of A+/(pop A+ plus pop SlymePit)].

Although I'll concede that those numbers - 2000 & 2300 - are only a small sample and anything but random. But that was, I expect, the reason for Oolon's "dodgy" ….

But that's not what he was saying. He was saying, based *solely* on numbers, that our point of the A+ point "not being well received" is pretty dodgy. Really, it's right there at the top. Had he said "Based on these numbers, A+ is more popular than the Slymepit", that's a valid comparison. It's one that you can use those numbers for, and it's ONLY talking about "which is more popular".

But he was using those numbers to say our point that A+'s points are not being well-received is incorrect, or "dodgy". That is, based on the superior popularity of the A+ website, we're wrong.

There's no way you can say the A+ message is or is not well-received based on the fucking membership numbers of two web sites. Holy fuckoley. Of course, then Oolon goes to say this site markets itself as the "alternative to FTB and A+" once again, showing he's a lying sack of shit.

But that aside, what he said was not "who's more popular". He was using popularity to say our points about A+ are wrong. THAT'S the part people have a problem with.

Thanks for the stats link Franc

BarnOwl wrote:Setting aside the fact that I don't really accept the concept of "race" as applied to humans, there is indeed something different about Austin. It's the only one of the four cities listed above that I've never called home, so perhaps I'm no judge, but the 2010 Census data seem to indicate that it's not the same as other Texas cities. And Austin, apparently, is an acceptable city to visit for a convention, because it's "not really part of Texas." Any thoughts on why Austin is OK and why it's not really part of Texas?

Oh, that's fascinating. :D

rayshul wrote:Thanks for the stats link Franc

Found it. Thank Gooby - http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 242#p21242

With regards to bikes, this is Greg Laden's bike - assembled from the trailer park garbage dump.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-I-SeV0lK-Ck/T ... ion-10.jpg

cunt wrote:Do they also have the SXSW festival?

I'll grant you that only Austin has SXSW, but that's in March.

It's October now, right? I had this weird experience on my recent trip, in which three of us were dropped off after a late dinner, at a hotel of the same chain, but in a town 10 miles away from our actual hotel. It was very dark and raining, and none of us was familiar with the area. The layout of the hotels was identical, but there were some superficial differences, like the font for the room numbers on the doors. I couldn't figure out why my card key wouldn't open my room. Another colleague had the same experience with her card key and room. The third person stayed in the lobby to print out boarding passes, and was the first to realize the taxi driver's mistake ... when I came back down to the lobby, his explanation dispelled my fears of early-onset dementia.

Whew!

PZ Myers wants to ask YOU a QUESTION!!

http://godlessradionet.ipage.com/haveyo ... withRW.mp3

My first response is shock. No wonder people are going around asking her out in elevators. PZ has been making her sound like a floozy!! SHAME ON HIM! FOR SHAME PZ MYERS...FOR SHAME! :naughty:

Maybe Mykery hasn't posted this here because he feels like he's pimping his stuff too often, [or maybe he's sleeping because he's got an early day tomorrow...like I do] so I'll do it for him:

[youtube]Yy0gryjLIsU[/youtube]

Seriously though. This is fucking uncanny. Like, I know she had already shown herself to be a bit on the crazy side when she told John the Other that he hated women, only to act as if she never said anything other than "don't talk to me" an instant later, but....wow. IRL Creepy Bitter Grrl is fucking crazy. :?

Mykeru, I meant... :x

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2116

An effort to 'reclaim the image' of A+ gets the author pounced upon, drawn and quartered, for first mistakenly double posting and then for using 'language that can be misinterpreted'. The usual suspects, ceepolk and LeftSidePositive is in there in full swing (and someone called The_Laughing_Coyote. Crazy bitch.). Like walking on fucking eggshells.

They also seem to be very terse about members NOT advertising the forum since it would attract all manner of trolls, apparently. Which is ironic considering that it was first announced on Jen's blog on FTB, a site that receives more than its fair share of visitors, and that the forum at its inception was posted on various blogs and published in some newspapers. But I thought it was supposed to be a safe space? Isn't it contradictory to say the purpose of the forum is for people who're sick of, quote, "harassment, sexism and misogyny" elsewhere "within the atheist community" and therefore the need for A+? Or have they scrapped that idea altogether and decided the place is their own personal playground and screw everyone else?

Seriously, though. The users are a ticking time bomb that can go off at any second, for any reason, for what they consider to be a "lack of good faith" or "using language that can be misinterpreted" or whatever the fuck they can think of. Walking on eggshells. Most threads I've looked at have either the commentariat in a fuss, moderators overly zealous and unnecessarily quick to exercise their modding rights, or both. If the rumour of the mod mole is true, though, overly zealous wouldn't be surprising. My bet is on SubMor. I'm also guessing that ceepolk is a Poe, because if not then my good wishes go out to the people in her presence. That goes double for the people around LeftSidePositive, Grimalkin, cipher, Josh the Spokesgay and now that I've noted another big player in the A+theism roster, The_Laughing_Coyote. If they're not Poes, which I hope but very much doubt, there is something very wrong with these people.

So, creepybittergrrl is a professional victim who is angry at men as a proxy for the resentment she has for her estranged father.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/ ... 506411.jpg

If I didn't know any better, I might assume these clowns were copying the traits and trying to embody the most stereotypical charicatures of the hippys I grew up around, and trolling the world en mass.

JackRayner wrote:Maybe Mykery hasn't posted this here because he feels like he's pimping his stuff too often, [or maybe he's sleeping because he's got an early day tomorrow...like I do] so I'll do it for him:

[youtube]Yy0gryjLIsU[/youtube]

Seriously though. This is fucking uncanny. Like, I know she had already shown herself to be a bit on the crazy side when she told John the Other that he hated women, only to act as if she never said anything other than "don't talk to me" an instant later, but....wow. IRL Creepy Bitter Grrl is fucking crazy. :?

She's a schoolteacher? I wouldn't let her anywhere near my kids. Crazy, self righteous, person of the xie persuasion.

Jesus, the world is a crazy train.

/bangs angry head on wall

....

Sasha ought to be introduced, face-to-face, in a room of eloquent design, to sacha.

Either education, or thermal nuclear war, would ensue.

KiwiInOz wrote:She's a schoolteacher? I wouldn't let her anywhere near my kids. Crazy, self righteous, person of the xie persuasion.

It's a bit saddening to think that there might be young boys in her care who might be turned off school completely by her behavior towards them. I might be impugning her unfairly, but I suspect she's the type to carry her emotional baggage with her into the class room.

Ah, and I meant to add, yes, if true, it is truly frightening to think that Sasha Wiley might be a school teacher.

Jesus, let's bring on Ilsa She Wolf for a bit of tea biscuit calm to educate our youngins.

Sasha Wiley, I know you do not know the Slyme Pit, but I live in your city -- well, almost -- and I most whole heartedly request that you just fuck off and disappear; please stop polluting the culturesphere with your hate.

Mighty

John Greg wrote:Jesus, the world is a crazy train.

/bangs angry head on wall

....

Sasha ought to be introduced, face-to-face, in a room of eloquent design, to sacha.

Either education, or thermal nuclear war, would ensue.

Or one of those strange videos where a mouse is fed to some frightening Amazonian creature.

Steersman wrote:

welch wrote:

oolon, slimy turd wrote: ...
I was not saying A+ are in any sense 'correct' about anything because they have more numbers than the slymepit or anywhere else, just that the numbers show that the statement that it 'was not well received' is to be considered pretty dodgy. ....

and your sole evidence that the statement is not well-received is based on the numbers on A+ being larger than here. That's exactly "arguing from popularity", aka, A+ has more people, therefore, our points that their points are not that popular are wrong. Were people here to create 5000 sockpuppet accounts, would you then reverse your statement? Don't answer, we already know you wouldn't. Instead, you'd start on about how numbers mean nothing, blah, blahdy, blah. Because that's what you do. Really, you're positively Romneyesque in how continuously fluid any stand you take is. ....

I think you’re missing the point. The question isn’t which side is right – using the “argumentum ad populum”, but which side is the most popular. And a definition of popular is “widely liked or appreciated” by which the numbers quoted proves the point: Jen’s “new idea” was in fact “well received” by the majority [approx 2000/2300 (population of A+/(pop A+ plus pop SlymePit)].

Although I'll concede that those numbers - 2000 & 2300 - are only a small sample and anything but random. But that was, I expect, the reason for Oolon's "dodgy" ….

Delurking to make a comment. Isn't it a false dichotomy to compare A+ to here. Shouldn't they compare A+ to the total population that reads the various Atheist blogs? I once did a back of the envelope calculation for PZ site a few years ago and I think that his readership was much larger than 2000.

So I think that 2000 is a good number but how many members does JREF have?

BarnOwl wrote:

peterb wrote: Exquisitely understated barn owl. Well played.

Thanks, peterb.

Nice Rothko avatar, btw. Have you been to the Rothko Chapel
r.

No. There was a recent Rothko show in Portland (where he grew up) that I went to but I haven't made it to Houston yet. It's on my list.

The Jref thread on Atheismplus is indistinguishable from this one. How many of you post there too?

It's good to see that The_Laughing_Coyote's insanity hasn't gone unnoticed. A member like that will poison a forum more than any troll ever will.

Michael J wrote:So I think that 2000 is a good number but how many members does JREF have?

JREF has a lot of inactive members, so you'd have to go by the active membership... good luck trying to figure that out!

Besides, I think most baboolies consider the JREF forums only one step removed from the 'pit.

welch wrote:

Steersman wrote: ...I think you’re missing the point. The question isn’t which side is right – using the “argumentum ad populum”, but which side is the most popular. And a definition of popular is “widely liked or appreciated” by which the numbers quoted proves the point: Jen’s “new idea” was in fact “well received” by the majority [approx 2000/2300 (population of A+/(pop A+ plus pop SlymePit)]. ….

But that's not what he was saying. He was saying, based *solely* on numbers, that our point of the A+ point "not being well received" is pretty dodgy.

Well actually, it was The Coffee Loving Skeptic [CLS] who had said that:

Where does it say in the charter than I can’t criticize Jen McCreight for storming off the Internet in a huff when her new idea wasn’t well received?

Maybe your “our” is intended to imply that the entire SlymePit as a body is behind that CLS statement.
===

welch wrote:Really, it's right there at the top. Had he said "Based on these numbers, A+ is more popular than the Slymepit", that's a valid comparison. It's one that you can use those numbers for, and it's ONLY talking about "which is more popular".

That’s basically all Oolon said on that point:

… but I see there are 1600+ members – which is something you could only dream about. By way of contrast the slymepit has 200+ members. So the ‘evidence’ for a general statement of not well received is a bit lacking in terms of raw numbers.

And from those numbers he inferred – from a somewhat questionable sample but still a less dodgy one that that provided by CLS – that Jen’s idea was in fact “well received”:

Not well received by a small number of people [i.e., some on the SlymePit?], some of which then engaged in an unpleasant campaign to ridicule her for having an idea ...

Maybe a tenuous conclusion since, as mentioned, the membership numbers of two groups probably doesn’t constitute much in the way of a credible “random sample”, but, arguably, far better evidence than anything offered by CLS.
===

welch wrote:There's no way you can say the A+ message is or is not well-received based on the fucking membership numbers of two web sites.

Admittedly, a bit of a stretch. But it was the claim of CLS that that idea “wasn’t well received”; it was their obligation to provide the evidence. All Oolon really had to do to call that claim into question was to provide a set of numbers – the membership counts of two supposedly central players in the drama – that suggested, quite credibly I think, that that claim was rather dodgy.
===

welch wrote:Holy fuckoley. Of course, then Oolon goes to say this site markets itself as the "alternative to FTB and A+" once again, showing he's a lying sack of shit.

Considering that more than a few people here have touted any number of aspects of The Pit in contradistinction to FTB/A+, that characterization doesn’t seem all that much of a stretch. Although I’ll agree he was somewhat out-to-lunch with his “Especially given this place has been going for years …”: while he’s partially wrong in the sense that the SlymePit, as hosted by phpBB, has only been about for about 4 months, he’s correct in the sense that the Slime Pit, as a thread on Science Blogs, has probably been going for several years. However, I wonder whether you called WBB and Dick Strawkins and mordacious “lying sacks of shit” for their transgressions ….
===

welch wrote:But that aside, what he said was not "who's more popular". He was using popularity to say our points about A+ are wrong. THAT'S the part people have a problem with.

I think you need to take a much closer look at what he actually said as I don’t see that at all; matter of fact, I see something almost the exact opposite:

I was not saying A+ are in any sense 'correct' about anything because they have more numbers than the slymepit or anywhere else, just that the numbers show that the statement that it 'was not well received' is to be considered pretty dodgy.

===
Changing gears here, just out of curiousity, or as a point of reference, are you John C.?

Regarding the numbers question and the comparison of the slymepit with Atheismplus, I think it's worth remembering the different reasons behind both messageboards.
Atheismplus is meant to be the main site for a 'movement' designed to promote social justice from an atheist perspective (or, depending on how you see it, sideline and exclude those atheists who are not in the correct political camp.)

The slymepit, on the other hand is more of an information resource, collating the instances of embarrassing hypocrisy perpetrated by the FTB hierarchy and thus limiting the effect of their self promoting dishonesty.
In fact the slymepit need have only one member to be of use.
People do not need to be members here, they just need to read it - and I'm pretty sure we have many more readers than official members.

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